LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

I DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

0AA;

[H 675' o 1-3

 

W

 

5V\\ “11000

 

err-ire
c:

 

‘13
MN 2 3 2001

 

Q

 

W?

 

 

._DEC_fl_5_zaos.'

 

 

02 02 H6

 

 

 

 

1/98 chlRC/DahDuapGS—p.“

CHURCHES AS A RESOURCE FOR HUMAN SERVICES
AND SOCIAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT:
A SURVEY OF THE WEST MICHIGAN CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
By

Susan Elizabeth Grettenberger

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Social Science

1997

ABSTRACT
CHURCHES AS A RESOURCE FOR HUMAN SERVICES
AND SOCIAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT:
A SURVEY OF THE WEST MICHIGAN CONFERENCE
OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
By

Susan Grettenberger

The past 17 years have seen an important restructuring of public policies concerning
care of the needy, with emphasis on returning responsibility for their care to their
communities. F aith-based institutions have been identified as sources of needed services.
Concurrently, a public discussion regarding the importance of social capital in democratic
society has emerged. Social capital is seen as a source of citizen civic involvement. The
role of religious congregations in contributing to both human services for the needy and
social capital in communities is examined. Here, social capital was assumed to be
developed through associational activities and hence, it results from any of the activities
which the congregations produced for persons in their communities.

A mail survey of the 441 churches of the West Michigan Conference of The United
Methodist Church, using a self-administered questionnaire, resulted in a response of 257
uscable replies. This conference is largely comprised of small towns and rural areas,
which was reflected in the sample demographics.

The majority of services provided are emergency and concrete services. Nearly all of

Susan Elizabeth Grettenberger
the responding congregations (96.5%) indicated that they would be able to increase
activities to others at least minimally, with a few indicating that they could increase
activities considerably. A regression analysis which sought to identify predictive
characteristics showed size of community and health of the church to be mildly predictive
of current activities.

Churches seemed most able and willing to increase services to children, youth, and
senior citizens. However, there are currently limited community-based activities for these
populations, particularly for children and youth. This suggests that the churches lack
needed resources to implement such programs without additional external assistance.

There were populations, generally stigmatized, which the congregations were
reluctant to serve, with the largest finding for gay and lesbian persons ( 40%). In addition,
welfare recipients were identified by only 12.8% of all churches as a possible priority
population for increased services.

Thus these religious congregations are a possible source of additional human
services and social capital for specific populations. However, their resources are limited

and they are not equally willing to initiate programs for all populations.

COPyright by
SUSAN ELIZABETH GRETTENBERGER
1997

To Edith B. Grettenberger, who would have been so proud that her granddaughter
completed a doctorate by asking questions about the Church and whose gentle curiosity
and intellect encouraged us all to excel.

‘
‘1»,-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people contributed to this study and supported me as I worked on completing
this final product. I am deeply appreciative to all those who have been involved in this
process. First, my thanks to my committee: Vic Whiteman, who chaired my dissertation
committee, John Herrick, who chaired my guidance committee, Margaret Nielsen, Mark
Wilson, and Vince Hofl‘man. Thank you especially to Rena Harold, chair of the doctoral
program, who was unflaggingly supportive during my doctoral years.

I ofl‘er my deep thanks to my family, especially my partner, Mary Boudreau, MSW,
and my parents, the Rev. George and Diane Grettenberger, who have for five years
offered support and intellectual stimulation. Thanks, too, to my sister and brothers:
Charlotte Fitzgerald and John Grettenberger, for reviewing my writing, and the Rev. Louis
Grettenberger for his thoughts regarding the church’s work in this area.

I must also thank the leaders and clergy of the United Methodist Church in the West
Michigan Annual Conference. They responded to the survey quickly and enthusiastically,
encouraging me and expressing personal interest in the findings of this study. I hope this
work will be of use to them as they nurture the churches in their trust. Finally, my
appreciation is also owed to The Aspen Institute’s Nonprofit Sector Research Fund, which

funded this research, and to Ed Queen for opening doors for me.

.i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
Definitions .................................................................................................. 4
Historical Context .................................................................................................. 7
Political Context ................................................................................................ 15
Social Work and Religious Organizations ................................................................ 19
CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Social Exchange ............................................................................................. 23
Exchange and its Limits for Altruism .............................................................. 28
Indirect Exchange .......................................................................................... 31
Social Capital ................................................................................................ 34
Definitions and operationalizing terms ................................................... 38
Decline or not? ...................................................................................... 43
Causality factors and predictive relationships ........................................ 49
Social capital and civic involvement of its holders .................................. 55
Implications ........................................................................................... 57
Social capital development in youth and children ................................... 61
Religious congregations as social capital development agents ................ 66
Social capital: positive and negative aspects .......................................... 68
Reciprocity and social capital ................................................................. 72
The limits of willingness or ability to help .............................................. 86
Summary of social capital issues ............................................................ 89
Theological Perspectives ................................................................................ 92
Research and Religious Organizations .......................................................... 101
The United Methodist Church ...................................................................... 103
Volunteers and the Nonprofit Sector ............................................................ 109
Religious Congregations: Role within the Nonprofit Sector ......................... 110
Individual Charitable Contributions in the United States ............................... 114
Churches:
Activities Outside Traditional Religious Functions ............................... 121

vii

i
p
Barriers to expansion or implementation of social ministries by churchesl30
Regional differences ............................................................................ 136
Funding potential of churches .............................................................. 138
The possibility of loss of mission .......................................................... 144
Summary of purpose .................................................................................... 147
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODOLOGY
Objective of Study/Questions ....................................................................... 149
Design .............................................................................................. 150
Measurement of Social Capital ..................................................................... 154
Sample .............................................................................................. 160
Notification of Subjects ................................................................................ 164
Data Compilation ......................................................................................... 165

CHAPTER IV. RESULTS

Who responded? .......................................................................................... 166
Characteristics of the churches ..................................................................... 167
Question 1 .............................................................................................. 185
Question 2 .............................................................................................. 202
Question 3 .............................................................................................. 212
Question 4 .............................................................................................. 222
Question 5 .............................................................................................. 226
Limitations of this study ............................................................................... 234
Summary of Social Capital Issues ................................................................ 235
CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The United Methodist Church in context-

What of the other denominations? ......................................................... 239
Application issues ........................................................................................ 240
What social workers should know about religion and churches ..................... 241
Education of social workers ......................................................................... 244
Social capital conceptualization issues .......................................................... 246
Implications for future research .................................................................... 247
Policy .............................................................................................. 251
Counterpoints .............................................................................................. 253
Haiti and Bolivia .......................................................................................... 256
A possible strategy for social work/religious collaboration ............................ 258
Conclusions .............................................................................................. 262

APPENDIX .............................................................................................. 265
BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 278

viii

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table 4.7

Table 4.8

Table 4.9

Table 4.10

Table 4.1 1

Table 4.12

Table 4.13

Table 4.14

Table 4.15

Table 4.16

LIST OF TABLES
Distribution of 1995 church attendance .......................................... 168
Distribution of community Size ...................................................... 170
1995 church attendance as a fiinction of community size ................ 172
Distribution of church attendance by location ................................. 177
Distribution of churches by community size and location ................ 178
Distribution by community size and health of church ...................... 180
Distribution of attendance and health of church .............................. 181
Number of churches by activity ...................................................... 188
Need identified for non-members, past two years ........................... 199
Response to non-members, past two years .................................... 199
Need identified for members, past two years .................................. 199
Response to members, past two years ............................................ 199
Anticipated ability to change response ............................................ 203
Anticipated ability to change volunteering ..................................... 206
Anticipated ability to change direct programs ................................ 208
Correlation matrix of church demographics and services ................ 215

ix

3
' Table 4.17
Table 4.18
Table 4.19

Table 4.20

Regression model for number of activities with direct involvement. .220
Regression model for potential to increase church run programs 221
Number of churches by activity detail for youth ............................. 224

Receptiveness to increase in activities by population/area ............... 229

Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5

Figure 4.6

LIST OF FIGURES
Budget ......................................................................................... 174
Distribution of services .................................................................. 194
Cumulative distribution of service .................................................. 195
Composite score by church size ..................................................... 205
Change in volunteering by church size ............................................ 207
Potential to increase church run programs by church size ............... 210

CHAPTER 1
Introduction

Since the beginning of the Reagan administration at the start of the 1980’s, there
have been continuing cuts in federal, and subsequently, state firnding for human services.
Concurrently, there has been considerable change in the way services are provided, with
ongoing shifts toward more localized administration of programs and considerable interest
in increasing the role of faith-based organizations in providing human services. Most
recently radical changes in the scope of welfare have followed the same general trends:
reduction of funding and devolution of program administration. While debate continues
about the relative merits and implications of devolution, including for welfare, it appears
certain that for the foreseeable future the trend will be toward decentralized service
provision and experimentation with transfer of services to religious organizations, among
others.

Yet, insufficient empirical evidence exists concerning the current work of religious
congregations or concerning their capacity to expand their work in social ministries.
There is a dearth of research concerning the place of religion in American society, of
religious institutions in the nonprofit sector, and of the potential for collaboration between
social work and religious institutions (Cnaan and Wineburg, 1996; Hall,1990). In fact, a
special issue of Rm’ew of Religious Research was devoted to discussion of the neglect of
this area by researchers (Smith, 1983; Little, 1983; Morris, 1983; Bickel and Picard, I983;
Moberg, 1983).

Religious communities, and more specifically, the faith communities of the Judeo-

2
Christian traditions, are understood by many to have played a critical fiInction in
community building maintaining a common moral cohesion or shared values (Gardner,
1996), ofi‘ering moral leadership (Leonard, 1976; Roof and McKinney, 1987), and
creating the tremendous voluntary structure which exists in the United States (Leonard,
1988). The presence of Protestant Christianity and its institutions in particular, is
intertwined with the development of democratic society in the U. S. (Hammond, 1983).
Modern, professional social work, has its roots in religious institutions and obtained much
early leadership from religious leaders, such as Rev. Gurteen who founded the first
American Charity Organization Society (COS). Finally, there is reason to believe that
much of the volunteering and charitable giving in the United States is directly related to
religious motivations or at least to participation in religious organizations (Hodgkinson,
Weitzman, Crutchfield, Heffron, and Kirsch, 1996).

Yet social work practitioners have tended to neglect the role of religiously based
organizations in service provision (Cnann and Wineburg, 1996) and researchers of the
voluntary sector have generally shied away from inclusion of faith-based organizations in
knowledge building. Governments at both the state and federal levels have been divesting
human services by cutting budgets, dccentralizing provision of services, and passing
through funding for services to local levels. Churches in particular are being asked to
assume a role in community service provision. Thus, at a time when churches are being
asked to absorb considerable new work, there is inadequate understanding of the
implications of such a reorganization of the way human services will be provided. In

particular, there is inadequate knowledge of the amount and nature of work already being

3
done within religious congregations and what more capacity or willingness they have to
expand that work.

Finally, the implications of church involvement with respect to developing social
capital have not been considered. Assuming that social capital is critical to the health of
democratic societies, an assumption which will be discussed firrther, the role of churches
in developing social capital through provision of services may be as important as their role
in actually providing direct services.

This dissertation is a study of the current work of a specific Christian
denomination, the United Methodist Church in West Michigan. Portions of the study are
descriptive, while the remainder seeks to develop an understanding of the factors which
influence willingness and capacity of churches to provide beyond their local congregations
as well as their potential in developing social capital. Specifically, this study seeks to
answer several questions which follow concerning the existing role of churches in
providing and their potential to expand social ministry:

0To what extent are churches engaging in activities that build social capital?

OWith what likelihood do churches report their ability to expand social capital

development activities?

OWhat characteristics of churches incline them toward greater social capital

development activities in their local communities?

OWhat social capital development efforts in churches relate to youth? To what

extent are churches indicating a preference for work with children and youth?

0 Are there specific populations which are more or less likely to be offered social

4

capital development opportunities?

Implications and applications for social workers will be presented, relevance to
policy will be suggested, and directions for firture research will be discussed. In addition,
the implications for churches as agents of social capital development will be discussed.

The literature review which follows points to the lack of research on this topic and
defines the scope of religious activity in the U. S. with respect to human services. This
paper argues for the necessity of more empirical knowledge to assist policy decision
makers concerning appropriate roles and capacities of religious congregations, to provide
practitioners with sound knowledge about the work which churches can do in order to
improve collaborations, and to provide a basis for further inquiry regarding the
contributions and potential of religious institutions in providing human services. Of
necessity, discussion related to the mission and theology of churches follows. This
discussion is critical, not as a means of advocating for a particular theological or
organizational perspective, but rather as a means of presenting the varieties of and
context within which US. religious congregations, particularly Protestant churches,

function as human service providers and developers of social capital.

Definitions
To begin, it is necessary to define the terms to be used with reference to religious
entities in the US. The United States of America has historically been a Christian culture

and a Protestant one at that. The re-emergence of faith-communities in public dialogue as

5
a potential resource in community has occurred at a time when there is increasing religious
diversity in the United States. Recognizing that there are many faith traditions, the terms
“faith-based” and “religious congregation or organization” are used inclusively to refer to
groups (Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist or other) whose primary mission relates to
their faith-base rather than their activities per se. However, the term “churches” will
generally be used within this paper, as the subjects of this study are congregations of a
Christian denomination and much of the research which has been completed relates
specifically to Christian churches. Where appropriate, the more inclusive terminology will
be used.

It is also necessary to understand the variety of human service-providing
organizations which are defined as religious. Religious congregations often provide
services directly; however, there are numerous separately incorporated nonprofit
organizations providing human services which have affiliations with the religious
organizations, either local congregations or denominations. An essential distinction may
be in the differences between their organizational missions, with religious congregations
having a primary mission of providing religious services and the separate agencies having a
primary focus of providing other types of services, although those may have a religious
overtone. Even this way of conceptualizing the distinctions is not always useful, as with
the Salvation Army which has a dual mission of providing both religious and social
services simultaneously.

Where separate organizations exist, the extent of the afiiliation between the

religious institutions and their service providing organizations may range from an historical

6
one, which currently carries little influence, to direct and sole governance of the nonprofit
service provider by the denomination or religious institution. These distinctions are
important in both research and dissemination efforts for several reasons. First, the
capacities of the two entities may be quite different. Additionally, to the extent that
religious congregations begin to directly provide services which their affiliated agencies
are also providing, finding and other support by the churches for the affiliated agencies is
almost certain to drop, to say nothing of competition between the two entities for the
same dollars from external fiinders.

Cnaan (1996, 5-6) has drawn on his own work and that of others to consolidate
religiously-afliliated social services, and by implication their primary organizational base,
into six types:

1. Local congregational welfare program, which includes direct involvement of the
congregation and its physical plant in the service. Food pantries and free meeting space
for 12-Step meetings are common examples of these.

2. Services provided by interfaith agencies such as ecumenical coalitions.

3. Services of sectarian agencies which are officially afliliated with a religious
denomination, receive funding through some type of denominational mechanism, and have
representatives from the denomination, often a majority, on their Board of Directors.

4. National projects which are under religious auspices. Habitat for Humanity is
one of the most obvious.

5. Para-denominational advocacy and relief organizations, which are not affiliated

with a particular denomination, but which are influenced by and frequently have

7
connections with local congregations. While many of these are international, there are
some which are locally operated and supported. Bread For the World is given as an
example of a larger scale para-denominational organization.

6. Religiously-affiliated international organizations.

In addition, two other concepts, social exchange and social capital, are constructs
which are relevant to the theoretical context of this study. Social exchange theory seeks
to answer questions of why individuals are willing to assist others who are in need. Blau
(1964), one of the early proponents of social exchange theory, describes social exchange
as related to an end which can only be accomplished through interaction between people.
Social capital has been defined by Putnam, (1995a, 67) as those “features of social
organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and
cooperation for mutual benefit” or, in other words, social capital facilitates social
exchange. Putnam, who tied social capital to the “health” of civic society, is responsible
for having popularized the notion of social capital, which Coleman developed (1990,
1988). However, there is disagreement among authors concerning how to understand
social capital and its application to the current state of civic America. Discussions of
definitional differences and operational problems will be presented in the section on social

capital below.

Historical context
The historical relationships between church, government and social work in the

United States are complex and often misunderstood. While many seem to believe that

8
religion is utterly distinct from both social work and state functions, there has long been a
direct relationships between religious institutions and both of the other two entities. In
particular, the role they have played with respect to addressing those who are in need in
the United States is important here.

American Christian churches have been intricately involved in social welfare
throughout their existence. In fact, the tradition of the Christian church since earliest
times has been to provide assistance to those in need (Conrad, 1980; Johnson, 193 0).
Sometimes it was as an institution virtually removed from the norms of the culture in
which it found itself. Sometimes it could be found working hand in hand with the state
(Hinson, 1988). In addition, religion, politics, and the government were intricately linked
in the United States, with formalized relationships between church and state modeled after
the Anglican church’s relationship with the government in England (Hall, 1994). The
emergence of the vast array of voluntary organizations in the U. S. which concerned
themselves with the collective good was the result, in part, of successful efi‘orts to
disestablish churches, of removal of churches themselves fiom the public dole, making the
churches themselves voluntary organizations. It was also a result of the conscious efl‘orts
of men like Leonard Bacon and Lyman Beecher to restructure the nature of religious
organizations. Their work redefined the structure of society, creating a place for
voluntary organizations, which were to form both an alternative to and also a significant
partner with the state in many arenas (Hall, 1994). The role of religious organizations in
that relationship was complex and dynamic, and it still is. As Manthey (1989, 105) points

out:

9
“Clearly, then, the early beginnings of secularization were present in the
State Boards and the Charity Organizations Societies. However, it is
equally true that religion continued to play a major role as the ideological
value base and rationale for social welfare policy”.
More specifically concerning the link between social welfare and religion, social
work itselfhas its roots in Christian churches’ efforts to assist those in need within
society.1 At the turn of the century, with social work evolving, settlement houses being
built, and continued immigration combined with industrialization to change the social face
of America, the church’s role in reaching out to the poor was also being actively explored
(Judson, 1907). Many early and very influential social workers were influenced by their
religious convictions: Jane Addams; Dutton Scudder, who founded Revington St.
Settlement House; J osephene Shaw Lowell, who was Commissioner of the NY. State
Board of Charities from 1826 - 1889; and Robert Woods, founder of Andover House, to
name a few. Many of the early organizations, such as the YMCA, the YWCA, and the
Boy Scouts, were founded on Christian principals or were explicitly identified as Christian
(Manthey, 1989). However, as Manthey points out, organizations such as the Charity
Organization Societies, even as they were being founded on Christian principles, were
often a response to what was perceived as the churches’ inability to adequately address the
social problems of the times.

As one moves through the literature of the twentieth century regarding social work

 

1 For an excellent discussion of the complex relationship between religious organizations, particularly
Protestant churches, and the profession of social work, see Barbara Jean Manthey’s 1989 dissertation

mg wor_k, religion and the church: Polig implications. The University of Texas at Austin.

10

vis-a-vis religion, it seems that while much changed, for example, reduction of sexism and
paternalism in the actual writing, much remains the same.

An entire issue of thel907 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science was devoted to discussion of the responsibility of the Christian church in social

 

work, focusing on the churches’ relationship with labor and response to socialism
(Cochran, 1907; Stelzle, 1907), the specific work being done within denominations
(Kerby, 1907), the relationship between Christian churches and settlement houses (Evans,
T., 1907 ', Simkhovitch, 1907), collaborative (ecumenical) work in a specific community
(Evans, D. 1907, Farwell, 1907), social work in the Black (Negro) churches (Wright,
1907), and issues of accountability and efliciency regarding the churches’ involvement in
social work (Allen, 1907, Carstens, 1907, Mangold, 1907). The partisanship of the
authors makes clear the institutional and personal importance of the Christian church, a
subjectivity not currently found within official academe, but one being expressed with
equal fervor at present by many others as the public discourse continues about who should
help the poor and how.

In 1915, what was then the Methodist Episcopal Church published a study book
for adult church school (Ward, 1915). Its author was a professor in Boston University
School of Theology’s social service curriculum, Boston University being one of the
universities affiliated with the denomination. Ward, undoubtedly reflecting the official
position of the church at the time, addressed the church’s mandate to serve those in
poverty. One interesting point he makes is to distinguish between being in poverty (those

who had little but received no relief) and destitution (those who had even less and were

I]

desperately in need of immediate assistance). While he implies some sense of blame of the
individual, his writing mainly avoids judgment for those in poverty, focusing on the
urgency for church members to feel personally responsible for working to end poverty
and, more specifically, on the need for churches to work toward improved working
conditions. Workers needed higher wages and shorter hours but were entitled to workers
compensation and disability. At one point, Ward (1915) suggests that the great social sin
of the time was the income gap between the rich and the poor. While not addressing the
current values of the church, it gives some indication of the way that faith communities
may be a source of values, which may be different than those of the remainder of society.

One clear issue which dominates this little study book is the extent to which liquor
is believed to be the cause of many of the existing social problems, including poverty. He
evokes scripture as the basis for suggesting that (1) Christians had a duty to offer
immediate relief; (2) they should have a systematic and efficient plan for relief; and (3)
local churches needed to develop their own plans for this relief (Ward, 1915). Clearly,
though the focus is somewhat different than that of the current era, the denomination was
actively seeking to understand its appropriate role in acting on the social problems of the
time, and to challenge individual members through their local congregations and
personally to address issues of both immediate symptoms and causes of poverty. It is not
known what success these educational efforts had, although certainly the work of the
Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, in which the
Methodist Episcopal Church was very active, played a considerable role in the passage of

prohibition.

12

In the thirties, a different type of document shows that this tendency continued to
be evident. F .E. Johnson (1930), in a report to the Federal Council of Churches
(comprised of the Protestant denominations) as the Great Depression was beginning,
described the state of social welfare service provision by the churches. He raised such
questions as the appropriate role of the churches with respect to the state, an issue which
pre-dates Johnson’s writing and continues to this day. It is clear from Johnson’s report
that one of the major social concerns not only of the Methodist Episcopal Church but of
all the major Protestant churches during the earlier part of the century was working
conditions for the laborer.

Johnson continued many of the earlier themes, suggesting that the rich were
getting richer, while whatever gains made by the poor were coming much more slowly.
His report expressed concern regarding the health of downtown churches, describing them
as “like a stranded ship which has been beached by the outgoing tide (35)”, and described
efforts to assist immigrants as having limited success. He also warned that churches were
essentially becoming too status quo, too concerned with their own comfort, and losing
their social focus, even as he described the efforts to that point of churches in developing
hospitals, orphanages, homes for the aging, settlement houses and programs such as
Goodwill Industries. The services being offered, however, were limited in scope and had
limited resources. Thus it appears that there was a simultaneous hopefulness about the
member denominations’ work to that point and concern regarding the future effectiveness
of the church on what appeared primarily to be urban problems. Also, Johnson (1930)

clearly points to the strength of the church in rural areas and the great needs in those

l3
locales which the church would seek to address.

One of the next periods of transition with respect to social welfare occurred with
the New Deal Era and then World War H. Thus in its March, 1948 issue, The Annals of
the American Acfiemy again tackled the place of religion and its institutions in addressing
social problems. Furfey (1948) defined the role of the institutional churches as being in
three areas: social thought, social action and social work. He expressly discusses the
parallels and similarities between the work being done by sectarian and secular
organizations, suggesting that the manner of service delivery was often indistinguishable,
with trained social workers able to comfortably move between the two types of
organizations. He goes further, pointing out that Protestant influences had shaped social
work, which then secularized, and that he saw the trend reversing at that point, with some
number of churches beginning to establish case work programs. Manthey (1989),
describes churches of that time as having even further lost ground in their efforts to
address social problems, being unable to efi‘ectively address the increased demand placed
on charitable institutions by industrialization and continued immigration.

In the mid-1950’s a series of lectures concerning the state of social work and
religion were presented through the auspices of The Jewish Theological Seminary’s
Institute for Religious and Social Studies. Several authors described the extensive efi‘orts
underway at that time by Protestants (Pepper, 1956), Catholics (O’Grady, 1956), and
Jews (Landesman, 1956). In a statement which minimally reflects an ideal standard,
Pepper says “Social work and social welfare services will be a major concern of the

Christian churches as long as we live in a fi'ee society. . . .(27)”. There is limited

N
V»

14
description of any actual local congregational efforts. Also in the series, Johnson, Butler,
Cary, and Morrison (1956) discuss what appears to be a constant issue, that of the
appropriate relationship between church and state, including the amount of religious
influence which was appropriate in state funded, religiously run programs.

Coughlin (1964) reflected on the relationship between church and state in
addressing social welfare just as the texture of American society was being torn by the
struggle for Civil Rights and the Vietnam War, and just as War on Poverty was being
launched. Generally at that time, it appears that many, particularly Protestants, viewed the
appropriate role of the churches as one of advocacy in improving the governmental
response to poverty and social needs. Included in that was the View that churches should
take the initiative in developing pilot programs for which the government would then
assume responsibility for full implementation or replication. Thus the prevailing
understanding at that point concerning the roles of churches was as social welfare
innovators, not as primary providers, the role seen as appropriately belonging to the
government.

One issue which Coughlin raises is the role of churches in social control. He
suggests that “social control is written into the very nature of religion (11).” Interestingly,
social work and certainly government have been important sources of social control
although government has had the most overt role in that goal, one which many in society
believe it is currently failing. One could make an argument that current efforts to return
service provision to the churches is partly a result of dissatisfaction with the government’s

efforts at social control, rather than necessarily concern regarding the efl‘ectiveness of the

15
government in providing assistance to persons in poverty. This raises cautions regarding
the potential ways in which churches may choose to implement services, as they may elect
to use their new-found role to implement social control measures. This is not to imply
that society should not have concern for social control; rather, it is intended to raise a
concern regarding the possibility of churches imposing their values on others as a means of
achieving their own versions of appropriate social behavior.

Thus, it is clear in reviewing even briefly the history of the role of churches that
there is a long-standing, if fluctuating, relationship between the church and the
government with respect to the provision of services to improve social welfare. The
appropriate nature of that relationship, including the exact role of churches with respect to
social services and social policy, has been debated for the better part of the past century

with a new incarnation of that relationship unfolding at present.

Political context

Still this mood in the country has resulted in a change in the balance between
federal government, state government, nonprofit organizations, and religiously affiliated
organizations. Since the beginning of the 1980’s, when Ronald Reagan assumed ofice as
president of the United States, a restructuring of the size and role of the federal
government, and in many places, of state government has been underway. Much of this
restructuring involves reducing funding of human services with the remainder
demonstrated in shifting responsibility for decision making and service administration from

federal to state or even municipal levels. Nelson (1983) describes the early efforts of the

16
Reagan administration to force the religious community into assuming primary
responsibility for the poor and describes the major Protestant denominations as “flatly
reject(ing) the Reagan ploy. They see it as a political set-up, not an ethical or religious
challenge. . .. Clearly, churches in the United States do not believe Reagan’s suggestion
that should [He] or could take primary responsibility for meeting all the needs of the poor
.... Nonetheless, it seems that Reagan’s extreme proposition has prompted many churches
to realize they should and could do more in certain areas than they have in the past.
Therefore, the church leaders say ‘yes’ to appropriately increasing their voluntary
responsibilities (92-93 )”. Thus, early in the 1980’s the major Protestant churches began to
develop ways of having a role in addressing the needs of the certain populations or
particular problem areas without committing to taking on primary responsibility for the
overall task of addressing poverty. The churches at various points have responded to the
calls from Presidents or Congress to become the providers of service to the needy.
However, there has not been any visible effort on the part of politicians to engage in
meaningful dialogue with the religious institutions concerning their willingness and
capacity to take on the large task being sent their way.

During this time period, many prominent people have taken on the many programs
developed during the previous two decades as part of the War on Poverty, alleging that
the government had become hopelessly mired in a system which was too expensive,
ineffective, dependency-producing, and abused by its recipients.2 Interestingly, but not

surprisingly, this sentiment is not new. Keith-Lucas, a professor of social work at

i
‘3‘.

17

University of North Carolina at the time, opened his 1962 book The grurch ml Social
W with the following: “Many an honest Christian is troubled by the welfare picture
as he sees it (emphasis added) in America today. He sees vast, expensive tax-supported
programs, some of which are undoubtedly necessarily, but some of which appear to him to
maintain people in idleness and some even to put a premium on shiftlessness or immorality
(5)”. Further, “much has been written and said lately about the ‘failings’ of (the welfare)
system. It has been accused of fostering dependence. Cases have been cited of families
who have been on relief for three generations (38).” It seems likely that there have
always been people opposed to the system of governmental assistance which was being
developed throughout much of this century. However, the balance of political power
dictated the decisions regarding the level of that assistance at any given point in time.

Most recently, the 1996 election which shifted control of the US. Congress to the
Republicans after decades of Congressional dominance by the Democratic party lead to
sweeping changes in the ways in which people in the U. S. who have needs, particularly the
poor, are assisted. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (commonly referred to as Welfare Reform) is the latest such legislative at the
Congressional level. One provision of this act, Section 4104 - Charitable Choice
Provision, opens the way for faith-based organizations to provide services more directly.
Specifically:

“Under the federal TANF block grant (replaces AFDC), if states contract with any

non-governmental organization of agency, the state must open the competition for

 

2 See, for example, Charles Murray’s 1984 book Losing Ground: American Social Polig, 1950-1980.

18
delivery of services to all groups, including faith-based organizations. When and
if a faith-based organization assumes a role of service delivery via the govemment,
whether through contracts of vouchers, the faith-based organization is not required
to change its internal structure of religious character. The religious service
provider may not discriminate against a beneficiary of assistance. In addition, the
Establishment Clause of the US. Constitution still applies, therefore, the faith-
based organization may not proselytize or have sectarian worship. This applies
only to federal funds. (Amey, undated)”

As Stanley Carlson-Thies (1996) points out, there are opportunities in this new
approach but also the potential for difficulties with interpretation. He suggests that the
entire purpose of allowing faith-based organizations into the welfare fi'ay is to draw on the
potential creativity and strength of these institutions in an effort to assist families who are
in poverty. Thus, even before the passage of Welfare Reform, efforts were underway to
enlist the support of religious congregations in working directly with the poor as
individual states began to make substantive changes in the criteria for receiving welfare
benefits. However, the considerable rhetoric about making recipients work and public
statements often made about the links of teen pregnancy and welfare, for example, suggest
that a part of the motivation for shifting responsibility for welfare efforts to the religious
community may have to do with a desire for more social control in association with
assistance to those in poverty.

What this most recent piece of devolution fails to take into account, however, is

that this trend toward returning needs to the community levels has been occurring for the

 

NY: Basic Books.

19
better part of two decades now. The first of the major cuts in social service funding
occurred during the earliest part of the Reagan administration. In addition, there have
been other types of cuts at the state levels, such as the elimination of general assistance in
Michigan under Governor Engler, a out which overnight removed thousands of adults
fi'om public assistance rolls at the beginning of the 1990’s. Logic would suggest that if
religious congregations and denominations had the capacity and willingness to respond,
they have begun doing so already. Hence, one can assume that some portion of their
original ability to respond has already been utilized. It seems critical to investigate the
extent of capacity and willingness which the religions congregations have to be involved in

non-religious activities.

Social work and religious organizations

The ambivalent relationship between social work and formal religion has been
evaluated by several authors. For a variety of reasons, some philosophical and some
related to rivalry (Louwenberg, 1988; Manthey, 1989), social work has generally
neglected the role of religion and churches in its conceptualization, curriculum, research,
and, undoubtedly, practice (Cnaan and Wineburg, 1996; Manthey, 1989). A few social
work professionals and educators have sought to bridge the two, specifically from a
Christian perspective, through formation of Christian social worker groups or publications
which have sought to encourage more integration of the two (for example, Richmond
Garland, 1994 and Keith-Lucas, 1962). However, on whole, the divide between

professional social workers and religious congregations has remained.

20

There is a bias by many professional helpers that using informal helping systems is
an inferior intervention. Thus, for many professionals the provision of services using
churches, particularly if minimally trained volunteers are used, is not a preferred option in
service delivery. In addition the discomfort of many social workers with what they
perceive as the bias of churches leads them to ignore organized religion as a resource
(Sheridan, Wilmer, and Atcheson, 1994), although that reticence does not extend to
requesting firnding from churches who are often a significant source of funding for social
service agencies (Wineburg, 1996). Louwenberg (1988) suggested that “stereotypes
about religious have lead some social workers into active opposition to religion. For most
social workers, this situation has resulted in an indifference and a lack of concern for all
things religious, especially with respect to their professional practice (11).” He further
points out that not all clergy are friendly toward social workers either, based on their
orientation toward the spiritual as opposed to the concrete. Still, social workers recognize
the importance of informal social support networks in the lives of clients. As one of the
professional groups often involved in developing and brokering services and programs,
social workers need to consider the potential of churches more carefirlly.

The resources available from churches are varied. Wineburg’s (1996) study of the
extent of resources available from religious congregations is quite detailed concerning the
types of resources. These included congregational volunteer support, ranging from board
leadership to administrative to direct services to support and custodial efforts. Financial
aid, both in cash and in-kind contributions, is another form of support. Virtually anyone

who has ever attended a religious congregation in the US. is likely to be familiar with

l .

21

holiday food drives or the efforts to collect or make needed goods for some organization
in town. The use of congregational facilities is another commonly offered resource for
nonprofits, as many faith communities have very utilitarian buildings which are otherwise
underutilized during the week. The fourth type Wineburg presents is the actual
development of programs run directly by the congregations. The range of these is
virtually unlimited. There is little if any research on which of these congregations
presently feel most able to increase. That is part of what this dissertation seeks to answer.
However, it seems likely that social workers who are reticent to collaborate with religious
congregations are more likely to ask for concrete help in the form of funding or other
donations, as these allow the social worker to maintain control of the helping interaction.

The above classification concerns itself primarily with the ways in which religious
congregations can support other institutions which are delivering services. The final type
can be considered as similar; it is the construction of specialized services to address a
need. There is one other resource which is not expressly considered in the four
categorizations. That is the informal assistance which is available through the existing
structures of the congregations themselves. This resource is essentially the social capital
which already exists within congregations and which can be made available to others as
they need it.

Specht (1986) in an evaluation of the interface between social work practice and
social exchange or social networks listed 25 articles in the preceding ten years which
addressed issues of social support. This illustrates the considerable attention given in the

literature to ways in which social workers could strengthen the social networks of persons

22
in need who were requesting assistance from or had been sent to seek assistance from the
social worker. Specht also points to the research which suggests that persons with weak
social networks and who lack social support are more likely to have poor health,
physically and emotionally. While it is not clear whether poor health is a cause or an
effect, there certainly is reason to believe that if people have needs, it is important for them
to be able to access resources to meet those needs. Specht suggests that for those who do
not have an accessible social (informal) network, professionals will fill that gap with a
formal helping system which will become the social network. Whether this actual occurs
is subject to speculation.

The question is whether it might be more appropriate and more productive for
society and the individuals involved to have informal helping networks, such as religious
congregations, become the social networks. As suggested above, many churches are
already strong networks. The separation of church and society has carried in many ways
into the methods of helping professions. This has tended to discourage professionals from
relying on churches to provide those networks for individuals they identify, unless the
individuals identify an existing relationship with the religious institution. Thus, an existing
resource which does not necessarily require additional development has been neglected.
Even if the answer to the above is ‘yes, religious congregations should be considerably
more involved’, the question remains as to the extent to which they are willing and able to

serve as developers of social capital.

‘

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Social Exchange
In considering the entire question of m a society attempts to respond to its
members who are in need, it is also necessary to consider w_hy there would even be such
an efi‘ort. It seems necessary to first theorize concerning the reasons that individuals assist
others, which social exchange theory seeks to do. Blau (1964) indicates that the
motivation of the participants in the exchange may not particularly matter. It is the
outcome of and impact of the exchange which are important. Thus the participants would
be prompted to the exchange either by the anticipation of immediate rewards or by
motives which are more diffuse. However, by definition, social exchange theory suggests
that people need assistance from others, at least some of the time, to have their needs met.
This implies that social exchange is a necessary element of society.
Two elements of social exchange theory have potentially important implications in
understanding the dynamics of helping as a formal social enterprise. First, unreciprocated
exchange inherently leads to a difl‘erentiation of power, with the person who gives
attaining some increment of power over the recipient (Blau, 1964). Intuitively, this seems
true, as any person who has felt obligated to another for unreciprocated help will attest.
It seems reasonable to assume that the more A needs what B has to offer and the more
frequently that A receives something from B, the more power B, who controls the needed
services or goods, will acquire. The idea of unreciprocated giving is institutionalized in

the profession of social work. A portion of social work training is devoted to appropriate

23

'5‘ ,

24
use of the power which one has as a professional helper/giver. Interestingly, within social
work, power is seen as being derived from one’s role (i.e. from having expertise). In some
senses, although not explicitly stated as such, clients are seen as being vulnerable because
they are in need. That is, the power differential is interpreted as being located in the need
of the client, rather than necessarily in the helping act of the social worker, or as social
capital theory will suggest below, in the relationship itself.

Within this interpretation, attempts by service recipients (clients) to reciprocate are
viewed as gestures which would potentially increase the professional’s power, rather than
being understood as attempts by the client to equalize power between himself and the
worker. That is, the client is in need and must therefore rely on the professional to get
his/her needs met. Often, these needs are material good needs, and if the power
difi‘erential is seen by the professional as based in the need of the client, then giving
anything away would be seen as extenting the period of time the client is needy. Such
attempts to reciprocate are rejected (in a professional way, of course), leaving the power
differentials intact. However, rejection of client’s attempts to reciprocate, aside fi'om
being rejections of the client’s cultural obligations, may sabotage the attempts of persons
receiving assistance to equalize the power differential between themselves and the helper
by reciprocating. Yet, fiom a different perspective, it seems clear that professional social
workers recognize the issues of reciprocity, and understand that if there is a gift from a
client, then they are in some way obligated to the client. Psycho-social approaches to the
appropriate boundaries between professionals and clients are frequently applied and have

an appropriate place in limiting the professional’s obligation to clients. Yet, these issues

. 4‘25"

rj'

l

J1

25

of reciprocity in social exchange, even in formal helping relationships, appear to have
important implications about the nature of relationships which are developed between
those in need within our society and those who assist them in getting what they need. It
raises questions about whether there are ways to assist those who have needs, particularly
those who are already disadvantaged, in a way which potentially builds toward equality
with others who are more advantaged, including those in helping roles.

For some, the rewards for their acts will come not from the recipient, but from
social peers. Thus people may give to those in need in order to secure social approval,
particularly from those whose opinions they value (Blau, 1964). Ironically, when social
approval is the anticipated reward, there may additionally be an expectation of reciprocity
from those who are recipients. This may be in more social situations, such as a dinner for
fiiends or the boss, and the reciprocity might be a simple “thank you” or it could be the
expectation of a return invitation to dinner later from the other person. However this, too,
has implications for the person in society who is in need and who is forced to secure
assistance from others.

The obvious implication is that there is a double-bind in our society for persons in
need. On the one hand, being in a position of need is likely to create a power differential
which leaves a recipient in debt, to some extent or another, to the person who has assisted
her. Mechanisms are in place within professional helping settings to reduce spontaneous
attempts by clients to reciprocate, but also which reduce the likelihood that the helper will

demand reciprocity. Of course, this is not a guarantee, as the periodic allegations of

sexual misconduct made against therapists demonstrates. On the other hand, there is a

26
tendency on the part of the helpers, regardless of their level of professional training, to
want appreciation or reciprocity of some sort. Curiously, professional helpers appear to
have recognized the value of reciprocity, and often have policies which obligate clients to
pay some monetary compensation for the services received while simultaneously having
policies which prohibit workers from accepting voluntarily offered gifts. Literally, such
compensation goes directly to the organization rather than the person to whom the
recipient feels a debt or toward whom she feels a desire to reciprocate. It is entirely
possible that the net result of the exchange, structured as it is by the organization, is that
recipients still perceive the power differential of the relationship while having to
compensate the agency. On the other hand, it may in fact serve its purpose, to some
extent, of alleviating the experience of unreciprocated giving for both the helper and the
recipient while limiting the potential of those who are helping to abuse their power.

The implications for provision of services through churches are somewhat unclear.
Certainly one possible result, if the above assertions are indeed valid, is that churches
might formalize the reciprocity or use the power inequality of the relationships in different
ways, such as the soup kitchen which obligates persons eating a meal to attend a brief
church service as a condition of receiving the meal. Another possibility is that volunteers
would need to be trained thoroughly to ensure that personal reciprocity is not demanded
or expected when it is inappropriate. Churches could, however, be more flexible than
social service providers and certainly more than governmental agencies in allowing
persons who are recipients of goods or services to assist with helping others or helping the

church in a way which reduce recipients to indebtedness to their service providers.

27

However, the concept of social exchange assumes that all people have something
to exchange. While this may be true in the broadest sense, unless helping organizations
are willing to value that which recipients have to offer in exchange, it may never be
possible for equity to exist between the helpers and recipients. As suggested above, this
does mean that churches may be in a unique position, should they choose to exercise their
discretion, of enhancing the equity relationship between themselves and the recipients of
assistance. The churches may, by their nature, value different goods that people have to
ofi‘er, including intangible goods such as their presence at activities, their motives, and
even their willingness to allow others to assist them. One thing which churches may have
in common with some professional helpers is that often the only compensation they need is
for the person who has received assistance to benefit from the assistance. Further, as will
be further discussed below, churches recognize indirect exchange and value it as much as
or more than direct exchange.

On the other hand, even though reciprocity may leave individuals indebted to
another, there is no assurance that in their time of need the other person will be able or
willing to assist them in the needed way (Uehara, 1990). This points to the need for more
formalized ways of assuring that those in need are able to secure needed help when they
are in crisis. As suggested earlier, perhaps churches are one avenue for providing more
reciprocal exchanges, and there is evidence that they do provide such an environment for
person who are members already (Ellison and George, 1994).

In a somewhat different vein, the points discussed above raise other questions. For

instance, how does the idea of reciprocity affect views by society of those in need? Are

x- 1'

. v

:'

Wt

r'

"new a

28
recipients of goods and services who are appreciative seen as being more worthy than
those who do not show appreciation? If so, will they sometimes be afforded more help
than others based on that perception? Are moral judgments or arbitrary decisions about
whom to serve related to issues of reciprocity? Does the power differential between
recipients and helpers affect the equality of services provided, particularly in a setting such
as a church where there is no assurance of policies regarding equal access to services,
policies which are institutionalized by public service providers? Finally, harkening back to
an earlier point, given the power differentials, might there be an incentive on the part of
some churches to use their position as service providers to implement social control with
recipients? It is not clear that there are adequate mechanisms for implementing standards
for the provision of congregationally run programs. This lack of monitoring, except in the
case of programs which are licensed or funded by government, is one of their potential
strengths, allowing for considerable creativity, but the implications of unequal exchanges
within the helping relationship present some very real challenges to administration of

services.

Exchange and its limitations for motivating alturism

Homans (195 8) discussed social exchange from another important perspective. He
first suggested that all interaction between people is, to some extent, an exchange of
goods, whether of material or non-material. This could include specific material goods
and services, of course, but would include a broad range of non-material goods as well:

sense of well-being, appreciation, sense of belonging and so on. The twist Homans adds is

29
to consider social exchange from the perspective of behavior psychology, too. He
incorporates the elements of aversive stimulation, satiation, extinction and cost in
considering individual decisions to engage in social exchange. These offer a different way
of conceptualizing the mechanisms of helping. Applied to the realm of volunteer
organizations, such as churches, these concepts begin to raise questions about the
potential of churches in addressing the array of problems which the federal and state
governments are dropping back into communities to be solved. These various ideas may
be applied to either an individual or an organization. However, since the individual is the
primary unit of the organization anyway, discussion will be limited to that unit.
Essentially, the behavior of individual members will determine the behavior and decisions
of an organization itself, including those of a church.

As Homans applies these concepts, aversive stimulation refers to the various costs
incurred by the helper. Presumably, there are also rewards or benefits. However, if the
aversive stimulation is great enough, the helping behavior will stop. Rational choice
theory conveys the same concepts, suggesting that if the costs continue to outweigh the
benefits, there will be a point when a person will choose to remove herself. For example,
if the person being helped does not reciprocate or is hostile, that cost to a professional
helper who is paid might still be less than the benefit of her pay. However, the cost to the
volunteer might be considerably in excess of any benefits, leading them to quit
volunteering. Another type of cost might be the inability of the church member to use the
church on a regular basis due to the presence of helping programs. If, as discussed below,

church members see the church facilities as primarily for their personal or church group’s

30

use, this would certainly factor in as a cost for many members. Homans also suggests that
fatigue is a cost. It is likely to be particularly true for volunteers who also work in paid
jobs that fatigue is a tremendous cost which influences decisions about volunteering.

From a slightly difl‘erent perspective, one has simply to read any number of recent news
articles to hear about the issue of donor fatigue, implied to be emotional fatigue in the face
of trying to help too many people with too little success. Thus, decisions to give of
personal goods, including money and material objects, as well as non-material goods, such
as time and compassion, hinge on the individual gaining some return or benefit without
too much cost.

Satiation is also a factor in this theoretical perspective, as those who give may
satiate in the rewards for their efforts (Blau, 1964). Thus, even when an activity is initially
very rewarding, whether in terms of appreciation fiom those helped, or in social approval,
there is a point, from a behavioral perspective, at which the person giving or helping will
discontinue doing so because heis satiated with the rewards. Without external
motivations which create conditions obligating the person to apply themselves more (a
positive reward, such as a check for helping or an aversive reward, such as going to jail if
they don’t help), most individuals will not continue to help within a given area indefinitely.
Thus, for a program in a volunteer organization to be successful on a long term basis,
there needs to be a large number of persons from which to periodically draw new
volunteers as current volunteers discontinue their efl‘orts. This may also hold for issues of
fiind raising for such organizations, in that often people’s giving efi‘orts satiate, too.

The implication of this is that the larger the organization, the more successful it

3 I
will be in maintaining its programs, and potentially in having multiple programs. This is
true partly because of the potential of getting volunteers to rotate through difl‘erent
programs. It also suggests that running programs with primarily volunteers may be very
difiicult, for recruitment and training of volunteers for different programs is a time
consuming endeavor. The combination of these caveats raises serious questions about the
ability of religious congregations to offer services in a way which is comprehensive
enough to adequately meet the needs of all persons within communities.
Indirect exchange

The work of Euhara (1990) provides a useful way of approaching some of the
difliculties described with respect to reciprocity. She describes what she labels indirect
exchange, which may also be thought of as circular exchange. That is, rather than direct
reciprocity between two individuals, there is a chain of giving or doing for another. Thus,
person A does for or gives to person B, who in turn does for person C. Then person C
gives to person A. Although the linkage is not made directly between every person, the
linkage is present and recipients may indeed be aware of all the connections. On the other
hand, they may not be aware. A recent story by John Schneider in the Lansing State
Jo_urn_al_ illustrates indirect exchange. A woman with small children took her children to
eat. She went reluctantly, but decided the benefits of not cooking outweighed the costs of
the meal and of having to get her children together to go. When she tried to pay her bill,
the server told her another patron of the restaurant had seen her alone with her well-
behaved children, and wanted to help her out by buying her family’s dinner. The woman

was touched and felt a need to reciprocate. So, she in turn paid for the groceries of the

32

woman in line behind her the next time she was at the grocery store. We don’t know
whether that woman also felt a need to reciprocate, but stories abound of such chain
reactions of giving, or conversely of pay-backs for negative experiences! The obvious
time sequence of this story points to a difficulty with circular exchange: there is a
sequence of events in which there is a spontaneous desire to assist another. The persons
helped are not necessarily obligated in any way to assist and any one of the recipients may
elect to break the sequence of exchanges. This concept, however, is in many ways the
foundation of the social capital theory which follows. It assumes that trust either exists or
develops between people, leading to an overall tendency of people who give to believe
that the non-binding interaction will lead to a similar act of assistance in the future when
they need assistance. Further, the assistance might not necessarily come from the original
recipient.

One interesting way to think about indirect exchange is in the context of the
concept of Pareto efficiency. To oversirnplify the concept, a Pareto optimal point is
achieved in a market economy when every person’s preference for available goods is
maximized, given the available resources. This occurs because there are people with
goods for which others have a greater preference than they do themselves and vice versa.
There are also people who are willing to exchange goods which they have, even though
they may not be better off, because they will also not be worse ofi‘. Iftrue, then the
implication is that there can be altruism which, while not totally cost free to the individuals
involved, can be at “discounted cost” and which results in an overall improvement for

society. Functionally, the effect is that of barter, if all the parties are knowingly engaged

33

in a direct exchange. In other cases, there may not be exchange as such, but a person with
something which has no value to them may be willing to donate it to another in need, if
they are aware of the need. For example, a person with a crib in the attic might choose to
give it to a family with an infant. In those cases, the cost which may prevent the exchange
is that of getting the information which is required to know that an individual has
something for which another would be willing to exchange. However, would be little
disincentive to exchange. One very realistic role of religious congregations is in the
various networks where information is passed regularly, reducing the cost of that
information to nearly nothing.

To illustrate the Pareto efiect more completely, consider the following scenario.
There may be a person who has many unneeded goods, including good used clothing and
furniture, but needs to have some plumbing work done on his house. Another person has
skill to do plumbing, but doesn’t need clothes or furniture. However, she lacks time to do
needed yard work and external house work. A third person needs fiirniture and has lots of
extra time and likes doing outside work. There can be an indirect exchange among these
three people. More importantly, each will apparently be better off than they are at present,
having given something which they themselves have in relative excess for something that
they need. Thus, exchange need not always involve reduction in one’s position with
respect to needed or desired goods. To state the obvious, two goods which may be

readily exchanged are money and time.

34

Social Capital

One way which such exchange can be facilitated is through the development of
social capital. This study concerns itself with the willingness and capacity of religious
congregations to assist persons in community through voluntary and other actions. As
suggested earlier, the impetus for assuring some minimal protection to members of US.
society was initially derived in part from Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically as it related
to values regarding the intrinsic worth of individuals. However, there is another, perhaps
equally important reason why some members of society believe it is important to enhance
the well-being of other members of that society. That is, the overall welfare of a society is
understood by some as being related to the welfare of its individual members. For some
the well-being of individuals is seen as important because in some difiirse sense, all of
society benefits from having members who are reasonably content. Moreover, recent
theorists, such as Putnam (1993, 19953, 1995b), have suggested that democratic societies
are healthiest when civil society exists in abundance and that social capital is the ingredient
which leads to civil society (Verba, Scholzrnan, and Brady, 1995). Thus, there are two
distinct yet related aspects of social capital theory which are relevant to this paper. One
has to do with the ways in which the individual members of society are afl‘orded
opportunities to develop adequate social capital to assure that their needs are met, and the
second has to do with the extent to which suflicient social capital is generated in a society
to assure that the needs of society itself are met in terms of citizen participation.

In many ways, the concept of social capital is central to understanding the place of

individuals through personal contributions and volunteering and of voluntary organizations

35
such as religious congregations in civic and civil society. Social capital has been defined
as those “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that
facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995a, 67) or, in
other words, as facilitating social exchange. Social exchange, then, can also be inferred to
be the main active ingredient of social capital, the element which allows for coordination
and cooperation to occur. This suggests that the presence of individual social exchange,
trust, and reciprocity are intrinsically related to the development of social capital. In
addition, Putnam believes that voluntary organizations and associations are the primary
social structures which facilitate the development of social capital of the sort which leads
to civic involvement. Individuals comprise the voluntary organizations and thus
participate in or contribute to the social exchange which occurs within voluntary
organizations, including religious congregations. This in turn leads to participation in civic
activities.

A note should be made that, while the discussion of social capital in this paper is
more focused, social capital should be understood as undergirding all social exchange.
This would include not only the interactions of persons in voluntary organizations and in
civic involvement, but necessarily all interactions in society which require interpersonal
exchanges, such as business negotiations. While there are some caveats which pertain to
the interactions of large institutions with each other, a point which will be discussed, social
capital and social trust may be understood as potentially present in and developed in any
firnctioning social environment. Thus, the fiinction of social capital theory is to explore

the validity and extent of social exchange, to explain the causal relationships between the

36
development of social capital in various types of settings and to understand the
relationship between healthy societies and the connections between its citizens.

Social capital, as it is currently being discussed, is a fairly recent concept, although
certainly there has been intuitive understanding of some of the features of social capital for
a long time. Coleman (1988, 1990) presents a thorough discussion of social capital within
a larger context of social theory. Putnam, however, widely popularized the concept with
what is generally recognized as a solid empirical study presented in W
Work: Civic Trflons In Modern Italy (1993) and later in an article, “Bowling Alone”
(1995a), which analyzed U. S. trends in social capital and civic involvement. Thus, much
of the focus of recent debate has concerned itself with the questions raised by Putnam: (1)
Is social capital declining?; and (2) Is there a decline in civic involvement in the United
States. However, while Putnam’s conclusion that there have been concurrent declines in
the two has been accepted in some quarters, there is not consensus that his attribution of
causal direction and factors, i.e. declining social capital is leading to reduced civic
involvement on the part of Americans, is correctly reasoned or even that there has actually
been a decline in these two areas of social interaction. These points will be elaborated
below.

An additional area of inquiry has been little discussed in the literature. That is,
what is or would be the impact of any decline in social capital on voluntary association
involvement in producing collective goods? In other words, assuming there is a
connection between social capital, people’s ability to get this done, and their membership

in voluntary organizations, are there enough people with requisite skills available to serve

V
‘_
‘1’

37
as needed volunteers? This implies questions regarding the ability of religious
congregations to address the needs now before them as a result of devolution. It is not
unreasonable to theorize that there is a spiraling cycle of development for social capital,
one in which the presence of social capital leads to the development of further social
capital. Such a model is proposed by Weiss (1996). Conversely, a dirninishment of social
capital will further decrease the overall stock of social capital in time. Briefly stated, if
participation in voluntary associations including religious congregations, along with
resultant social capital are declining, there may not be sufficient social capital in religious
congregations to address the needs to which they are being asked to respond. However,
in order to discuss these questions, it is necessary to further clarify the concept of social
capital, including defining and operationalizing of the concept, and presenting the various
arguments concerning the validity of Putnam’s claims regarding the state of social capital
and civic involvement in the United States.

To begin, Putnam throughout his writing draws a causal relationship between
social capital and the civil involvement of a citizenry (1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1996). Thus
social capital is presented as a primary source of the citizen participation on which
democracy is built. This social capital is formed through the interactions people have in
voluntary associations of all kinds. Finally, he concludes that both social capital and
hence, civic society in the US. are in decline. Many have seemingly accepted his
definitions and conclusions, in some cases simplifying them as they applied them, in other
cases elaborating the theory Putnam presents. Some have suggested that Putnam’s

definitions and assumptions need to be reexamined (Berman, 1997; Foley and Edwards,

38
1997; Kenworthy, 1997; Minkoff, 1997) and others, that his explanations regarding
causality and the impact of the apparent decline in social capital may not be adequate or

accurate (Heying, 1997; Kenworthy, 1997).

Definitions and operationalization

Social capital, while intriguing, and intuitively a very useful conceptualization, has
been under-theorized by many authors, making research and discussion difficult (Foley and
Edwards, 1997; Levi, I996). Putnam identifies characteristics of social capital, but some
feel his definition makes social capital difficult to measure. For example, Foley and
Edwards’ (1997, 560) state that Putnam “operationalize(s) social capitaL nonetheless, in
the most general terms as strongly correlated to membership in voluntary organizations”.
That is, Putnam fails to define any concrete qualities of social capital, instead relying
primarily on people’s associational characteristics to assume the presence of social capital.
They go on to point out that the measures which are available seem to be driving the way
social capital is understood, which is clearly a backwards approach to conceptualization.

In addition to the operational issues, one must consider the actual nature of social
capital. Unlike physical capital of various sorts, social capital does not belong to the
individual. Rather, as Coleman (1990, 302) points out it resides in the relationships
between people, rather than being possessed by them. And thus social capital is essentially
the potential for individuals to get their needs met, not necessarily the actual occurrence of
so doing (Weiss, 1996, 21). As Coleman (1990, 302) aptly notes, social capital which

may be useful in one setting may not be in another. It may be productive or it may not,

39
but it has the potential for productivity.

Physical and financial capital generally exist in relatively fixed amounts and are
redistributed through market or equity programs between various individuals in a society.
If one person has more, it is generally at the expense of other. If one has less, it is usually
to the benefit of another. Welfare benefits transfer tangible benefits from one set of people
to another set. So, while individuals may thus be advantaged or disadvantaged, in an
absolute sense, under normal conditions society does not gain or lose much financial and
physical capital. Social capital, on the other hand, is not present in a fixed quantity. If
social capital is lost to an individual, it is lost to all of society. It is not firngible in the way
that physical capital is, and unfortunately, cannot usually be given to another. Thus, it
must be built on an ongoing basis in the relationships people have. This lends urgency to
generating ongoing attention to the development of social capital, if one assumes that the
existence of social capital has value to a society. However, given that capital of all forms,
by definition, facilitates productive activity, its value does seem implicit (Coleman, 1990,
304)

So, then what constitutes social capital? Putnam ( 1995b) has essentially identified
norms along with networks and social trust in his definition, but does not clearly
distinguish between them operationally in his discussion. Further, Putnam suggests a link
between people’s membership in groups or organizations and their willingness to trust,
with the act of joining believed to precede the presence of trust, rather than trust being the
motivation for joining (Brehm and Rahn, 1995). Putnam discusses social trust as a salient

measure of social capital but does not suggest a measure for social trust. He also implies

40
that participation in a variety of voluntary organizations is a measure of social capital.

Newton (1997) attempts to clarify the definition by differentiating three defining
areas of social capital: norms and values, networks, and consequences, all of which
except consequences Putnam also included. Newton points out that these are quite
difl‘erent types of variables in terms of operationalization, and there should really be
considered separately from each other, something Putnam fails to do. Newton’s summary
of norms is that they include trust and values positing social capital with having stabilizing
qualities in society. Also, they are subjective and intangible, making them less than
amenable to empirical discovery. Networks are more easily measurable, being both
objective and observable.

The rationale for why social capital exists in participatory activities relates to
reciprocity, trust, and social exchange. The level or trustworthiness of the environment
influences the willingness of individuals to do for each other. Part of that trust stems fi'om
the likelihood that persons who owe others will return the assistance. The social norms of
voluntary memberships organization, particularly religious ones, require in many cases
either concrete or symbolic gestures of commitment. For example, membership vows in
the United Methodist Church include a commitment to “uphold (the church) with your
prayers, your presence, your gifts, and you service”, vows which are then echoed by the
congregation as part of the ritual (United Methodist Church, 1989, 48). In addition, social
norms make explicit in the theology of the church expectations of reciprocity, including
indirect reciprocity. Indeed, directives to do for others even without the expectation of

reciprocity may be found throughout the Bible (see Matt 25:31-46 and James 2: 14-18). In

41
Matt 6:40 Jesus exhorts his followers not only to give their coat, but if asked for a coat to
also give their cloak! This certainly is not a quid pro quo approach to helping others.
This creates a more trustworthy environment, where it is understood that members will
continue to be available to honor social commitments, and that the norms of the
organization suggest that such reciprocity will be offered. In fact, there is some evidence
that persons involved in religious congregations perceive themselves as having both
greater amounts and higher quality of social capital than do persons who do not
participate in religious congregations (Ellison and George, 1994).

Consequences, which can be understood as the products to which Coleman refers,
are the final potential measure of social capital. However, it is more appropriate to defer
the concept of consequences to future research rather than attempting to include them in
the definitions of social capital, given the limited research of social capital to this point
(Newton, 1997).

One of the presumed products of social capital, civic society, figures prominently
in discussions of social capital and also merits definition. Putnam (1996, 34) defined civic
engagement as “people’s connections with the life of their communities, not only with
politics.” He describes participation in collective political functions as a measure of civic
involvement, including attendance at a rally, attending a public local meeting, or working
with a political party as variables related to social capital. He also, however, used
measures such as voting and newspaper reading (1995a, 1996).

Much of this discussion assumes that social capital accrues benefits primarily to the

persons directly involved in exchange. However, Coleman (1988) makes an important

42
point concerning the public goods aspect of social capital. As has been discussed, when
social capital is lost by one person, it is lost to all of society since it resides in
relationships. As a result, if one person is willing to engage in intensive social capital
development, others will benefit. In the example Coleman gives, a mom invests
considerable time in a school. The relationships which she generates on behalf of her own
child benefit all the children in her child’s classroom and possibly at the school. The
mother and her child only realize a portion of the benefits of her efforts, leaving the
remainder as a public good. However, the mother’s decision to withdraw from her
volunteer activity, as a result of a job or move, withdraws social capital from all the
children at the school who had benefited. As Coleman points out, the family itself may
actually improve its position financially or otherwise and may regain comparable social
capital elsewhere. However, the school does not improve and will actually be
disadvantaged by the loss of social capital. This analogy of public goods and social capital
also applies to the role of religious congregations in their communities.

Ultimately it is difficult, given the current state of the art, to directly measure social
capital. In order to measure the social capital which exists within communities essentially
proxy measures must be used, the most Viable and accepted of those being participation in
voluntary and political activities. These measures seem to be accepted by and in some
cases have been used by a number of researchers (e. g. Newton, 1997; Weiss, 1996;
Youniss, McLellan, and Yates, 1997). In spite of the limitations, they seem adequate in
that they are intuitively sound. While it is difficult to determine the quantity or quality of

trust which is generated by interactions in voluntary organizations and associations, it is

r...

”—32. 3‘

43
clear when interactions which are believed to contribute to the development of social
capital are present. It is then possible to infer that there is more social capital present than
there would be in the absence of such participation. One can even infer some amount of
trust between members of the interaction, on average, for if it were totally lacking they
would likely chose not to continue participation. In addition, it seems obvious that civic
involvement, if defined by involvement in face-to-face political participation of any sort, is

itself not only a possible product of social capital, but also a source.

Decline or not?

Putnam (1996) offers considerable evidence which he interprets as a drop in social
capital, but there is far from agreement from others concerning his interpretations.
According to Putnam, social trust measures, based on the General Social Survey across
the previous two decades (1996), show a steady decline. The organizations which Putnam
(1995a, 1996) identifies also show a precipitous drop in membership between the 1960’s
and the 1990’s. Greeley (1997b) contests Putnam’s methodology, arguing that
volunteering is actually increasing across age cohorts. His analysis of the European Value
Studies of 1981 and 1991 finds that the younger cohorts, when compared to older cohorts
volunteer activity when they were the same age, are actually volunteering more. Given an
understanding of participation, not necessarily membership per se as important in the
development of social capital, Greeley’s point seems reasonable.

Putnam’s original article makes the point about reducing involvement in organized

associational activity by pointing out that even though more Americans than ever are

44
bowling (up 10%), the number of people bowling in leagues has dropped (down 40%),
implying as his title suggests, that people are bowling alone ( 1995a). Yet this single
analogy also allows a counter argument to his claims that social capital development
opportunities are dropping. Ammerman (1996) suggests that people are still bowling
together; they may simply be bowling in social or family groups rather than leagues. This
argument is equally plausible, as people may be unwilling or unable to make the
commitment to regular league play and select other less formal structures of gathering.
Lemann (1996) takes a different tack, pointing to the surge in new or different types of
organizations which are replacing the more traditional ones which Putnam used as
measures. In a clever twist on the sports league analogy, he points out that the number of
US. Youth Soccer members has gone from 127,000 to 2.4 million in the two decades on
which Putnam focuses.

Lemann thus raises the question of whether Putnam is simply utilizing antiquated
associations to measure voluntary associational behavior, leading to an underestimation of
people’s current associational behavior. Minkoff (1997) takes similar questions of social
trust and associational trends even further than Lemann by suggesting that a form of
organizations which Putnam has discredited, national social movements such as the Sierra
Club, do have an active role in social capital development and civic involvement. Social
movement organizations have been characterized as, among several things, having national
leadership which is removed from membership in communities, and as being comprised of
members who are often solely financial contributors, thus lacking any investment in or

interaction within the organization. Yet these same organizations often have extensive

N‘L’_~

45
grassroots or community-based structures which provide the local infi'astructure needed to
mobilize memberships. Further, these organizations often have local chapters which
engage in local activities, clear fitting under the associational definitions which Putnam
makes (Minkoff, 1997).

One aspect of national organizations which has interesting implications for local
groups, including religious congregations, is the creation of “symbolic communities”
(Cornell, 1996). Within symbolic communities, there are three dimensions along which
the groups are defined: interests, institution, and culture. In considering religious
denominations, one such as the United Methodist Church appears very strong in the
institutional and culture dimensions. The dimension of interests is probably moderately
strong, given the relative diversity (with respect to SES of members) in the United
Methodist Church, its wide regional distribution, and the fairly individualistic approach to
personal theology. Thus, it seems reasonable to view religious denominations as
potentially being a fairly strong symbolic community, even as they function primarily as
face-to-face communities (local congregations).

Modern technologies, including the Internet, allow individuals who are
disconnected generally from society by distance or by social factors to connect with each
other through an interest which they share, creating a different type of symbolic
community (Minkoff, 1997). A particular advantage of this means of connection is the
ability of persons who are isolated in their places of residence, for example, gays/lesbians
or persons who are deaf, to become linked to others with whom they share an identity

(Minkoff, 1997). It certainly is a credible argument that persons affiliated in this way

46
would develop additional social capital and could increase their civic involvement as a
result. This raises interesting questions about the potential use by organizations, even
those such as the United Methodist Church which have many local structures, of such
technology as a means of engaging persons who are isolated and unwilling or unable to
access the local structures.

As an example of such an effort, a computer AIDS ministry (CAM) was developed
and is maintained through the web site of the denomination’s General Board of Global
Ministries.3 The implications of this form of engagement as a source of social capital
development remains to be explored, but its potential looks promising. Technology such
as Internet dialogue venues offers the potential for persons who would otherwise not
engage with voluntary organizations the opportunity to become a part of a symbolic
community without having to first trust. One reason is that the medium allows a level of
anonymity until a person chooses to be more disclosing. Further, persons thus engaged
could begin to feel a sense of identification with the institution which sponsors the
technology approaches, perhaps beginning to consider face-to-face participation, which in
turn would encourage reciprocity. It is equally possible that social capital which is
abstractly developed in the sense suggested by Minkofi’s (1997) social movement theory,

would translate into civic involvement in equally abstract ways, such as through civic

 

3 The CAM Web Site is found at http//gbgm-umc.org/CAM/ or through the General Board’s home page,
which can be found by searching key words umc and gbgm. The gbgrn site is a resource for considerable
information regarding social and other ministries of the denomination. but additionally, provides free
access to all local churches for development of home pages for their local congregations. There are other
United Methodist Web sites, not necessarily tied to the gbgrn, which identify local churches with
ministries to persons living with AIDS. It is also possible to identify and dialogue with churches who
identify themselves as reconciling congregations, welcoming and accepting of persons who identify as gay
or lesbian. Any number of other specialized ministries or outreach efforts may also be found

47
participation Via the same medium. Thus, the social capital of this kind might lead to a
difl‘erent looking product, but one potentially just as beneficial in some aspects of civic
America.

One disadvantage of technology use in developing social capital is the possible lack
of access which persons with lower income or more limited educational experience, such
as youth in inner city school systems. Portney and Berry (1997) raise just such concerns,
suggesting that theorists have failed to consider the social capital and civic involvement
trends for the lower-income and inner city residents, or to distinguish between persons in
the majority and minority. Ifchurches are to be one of places where the significant social
capital development is to occur, then it is important to consider whether there are
populations, defined by race, economic group, or other characteristic such as welfare
status or sexual orientation, who are being excluded or neglected from social capital
development to some greater extent than others. Use of Internet technology, for example,
would clearly exclude some populations at present. However, one of the opportunities for
local congregations is to be in the forefront of assisting persons who lack such access to
gain it.

Given all these somewhat contradictory analyses of the state of social capital, it is
diflicult to say across the board that social capital is declining. Nor is there conclusive
evidence that it is stable or growing. A very fundamental question which is raised, in fact,
is what the appropriate baseline ought to be for social capital. There are interesting and

sometimes convincing arguments about the state of social capital, but it is not certain what

 

48
amount or what types of social capital are needed in society for its members’ social
welfare to be adequately cared for.

The other issue, as presented by Putnam, is the positive relationship between
social capital of and the level of civic participation by citizens of a country, which
ultimately affects the strength of the democracy itself. Putnam (1995b) points to the
decline in civic participation through a variety of measures he identifies as related and to
trends of declining participation across the board in organizations (down about 25%),
including churches, and in informal socializing (down about half) between 1965 and 1985.
There are also indications that there has been a dramatic drop (about one third) in social
trust since 1974.

Putnam’s arguments, although well presented and empirically driven, cannot be
accepted at face value, however. His original discussion of the place of social capital in
the success of a society was based on research completed in Italy, and while his research
appears generally solid, he makes inadequately substantiated assumptions about factors
such as the link between associational patterns within communities, economic success of
those communities, and the civic involvement of the communities (Quigley, 1996).
Kenworthy (1997) theorizes that social trust is not, as described by Putnam, always
necessary for economic cooperation, for example if there are institutional arrangements
which encourage such cooperation. He suggests instead that “trust, then, appears to be a
helpful but not a necessary precondition for economically beneficial cooperative behavior
(649).” In some cases then, social capital may exist without trust being present, as long as

structured settings allow people to act on the networks which they have established.

u
v- 4

49

The various arguments being made that social capital is not on the decline imply
that the products of social capital, such as civic society, must also not be on the decline,
although most authors do not expressly make that claim. Verba, Schlozrnan, and Brady
(1995) in their widely cited study found in Voice and Equality Civic Voluntalismg
American Politics, described mixed indicators regarding the participation of citizens in
political process. For example, voting clearly declined between 1967 and 1987 while
contact with public officials at all levels of government are way up. They interpret these
trends as reflective, not necessarily of a decline in participation, but rather of shifts in how
institutional mechanisms function which have lead to changes in the forms of civic
involvement. Further, measures of political participation alone are inadequate indicators

of civic involvement.

Causality factors and predictive relationships

Understanding causal relationships between social phenomenon is often dimcult,
but critical to explore when one is seeking to address areas perceived to be problematic.
The general model is that participation in voluntary organizations produces, among other
things, social capital for the participants. This social capital, in turn, leads to a higher rate
of participation in civic society, both through volunteering to assist others and through
participation in the political democratic process. Early voluntary associational activity is
seen as being the starting point for social capital development.

In the case of social capital, there are two areas which merit examination, both of

which have only theoretical causal relationships suggested at this time. For the purposes

‘L.
‘
“4 r ‘

50
of this section, it is accepted that there is a decline in some aspects of social capital and in
the variables specified by Putnam as related to civic participation. The first question is,
what is causing any decline in social capital? The second question is whether declining
social capital or some other factor is prompting a decline in civic involvement in the
United States. In both cases, the assumption is that there may be a decline in the
commodity, an assumption about which there is clearly not agreement.

Putnam (1995b) proposes a variety of possible explanations for the decline he
perceives in social capital, but discounts all of them. Among the explanations which he
claims to eliminate are the changing role of women (working women actually
volunteer/belong to organizations more than housewives), broken marriages (there may be
some effect, but happily marrieds are joining less, too), increasing mobility of families (it
has not really increased), and education (overall education has increased and there are
declines in every educational group). The most probable culprit, as he sees it, is the
incredible encroachment of television on U. 8. culture. The differences in social capital and
civic involvement seem sharply divided between the older generation which was raised
without television, and the following generations which have shown a steady increase in
television watching and steady decrease in joining organizations and in civic participation.
There has long been a myth of rugged individualism in the United States. A somewhat
whimsical analogy to Putnam’s analysis is perhaps that what the real Wild West did not do
to make the myth a truth, re-runs of shows such as John Wayne westerns may be
accomplishing. However, Putnam’s analysis is far fiom universally accepted.

One study sought to test Putnam’s hypothesis about television by analyzing the

‘a
“'5" w?

51

amount of political involvement as a firnction of types of television programs watched
(Norris, 1996). This study suggests that it is not television per se which is related to
political participation but that it is the type of television which is watched. Norris also
found, reanalyzing factors similar to those identified by Putnam, that when other variables
are controlled, education is the most consistent predictor of various types of activism.

Pildes (1996) presented another perspective on social capital. Rather than
focusing on individual involvement in voluntary organizations, Pildes sought to partially
explain declines in social capital as the unintended consequences of public policy on social
capital. He argues that public policy is often developed in an attempt to institutionalize or
strengthen social norms of helping or informal policing, with the effect of actually creating
barriers to the continuance of those norms. In the process, social capital is destroyed.
Social norms, strengthened by social capital, influence and enhance the enforcement of
existing laws. For example, often the presence of social capital, encouraged by the
physical space in communities, leads neighbors to speak to each other and to spend
considerable time mingling outside. Zoning regulations designed to enhance public safety
by creating less dense communities make it more difiicult for neighbors to mingle and
relationships are diminished. As a result, neighbors are less involved with each other and
public safety worsens.

Carol Rose (1996) goes a step further, specifiying a model in which social capital
leads to social norms. These in turn frame the moral and cultural infi'astructure of
communities. The implication is that social capital is the raw material which is used to

build healthy communities. It seems reasonable that churches, as community based

52
organizations with an environment which fosters socialization, could be critical in the
maintenance of social capital. Further, the diversity between churches combined with their
relative ubiquitousness creates numerous opportunities for people to be involved.

Heying (1997) also offers another structural explanation for the decline in social
capital, based on his analysis of the civic elites in Atlanta in 1931, 1961, and 1991. He
proposes that part of the decline in certain types of participation, such as membership on
boards of voluntary organizations and community leadership posts, results from changes in
the economic structure of the United States. This economic restructuring has changed the
local picture of business in most communities, as local companies which were run or
owned by the local elite have been bought by national companies. The managers who are
placed in leadership positions within the communities subsequently are not locals, as the
past CEOs were, nor do they have the authority that the previous CEOs had to utilize
company resources for the betterment of the community. Finally, they simply do not have
the commitment to the community which the prior elites had had. As a result, they do not
offer civic leadership in a meaningful way. One can hypothesize that another result of the
economic transformation of corporations is a reduced tendency on the part of the
managers of local branches to encourage employees’ involvement in civic activities.

The point Heying makes is that while Putnam has accounted for individual factors
one by one in his analysis, he fails to put them together in a larger analysis of the change in
social structure. Heying analyzes a very specific aspect of that change - the place of
“home-grown” elites in communities - but his conceptualization raises other questions

about structural changes in society. The pace of change, wrought by technology and

53
radical restructuring in global political and economic arenas, along with the realignment of
wealth in the U. S. may well be responsible for a change in how people perceive the world
and their ability to have an impact.

Yet there is another factor which is alluded to by many of the theorists without
being accounted for in many of their models. Level of education is identified as the most
universal predictor of voluntary association involvement and civic involvement (Brady,
Verba, and Schlozrnan, 1995; Newton, 1997). It may be more appropriate to include the
role of social capital in ensuring educational success or of school participation in social
capital development, rather than focusing primarily on voluntar~ - .ganizations and to
include educational level in any multi-factor analysis of predictors of civic involvement.

In addition, viewing participation in voluntary organizations as the starting point
for understanding social capital seems inadequate, although important. While such
participation may in fact be a predictor of civic involvement, for example, it is not an
adequate model if one is attempting to determine effective means of building social capital
across a community, or with those who are most deficit. If one utilizes the most basic
definition of social capital, that of social networks which facilitate mutual satisfaction of
needs, then the firndarnental source of social capital for most is the family (Newton, 1997).
The focus on voluntary associations is limiting. There seems to have been no empirical
examination of possible connections between the family’s reservoir of social capital, the
likelihood of involvement by its members in voluntary associations, and subsequent social
capital or civic participation. It is not known whether a person who has existing social

capital benefits more from additional social capital activities than someone who does not,

54
or if perhaps, they simply might have greater access to additional social capital
development opportunities. It seems possible that they would. In a related vein, it is also
not known whether persons who have a limited amount of social capital are able to take
advantage of social capital development opportunities without instruction. Again, it seems
very possible that the form in which such social capital is made available will afi‘ect the
ability of the person to develop it.

To return to the analogy with financial capital, one truism which is often expressed
is that it takes money to make money. Unless one begins with a store of funds (financial
capital), it is difficult to have anything to invest. This is similar to the idea of social
exchange and the limits of reciprocity, as persons who are disadvantaged may find it
difficult to improve their position, having very little to offer in exchange for that which
they need or want. Thus those with limited social capital may have little to ofl’er initially.
However, one study which examined issues of income with respect to social capital found
that persons who were poorest often have more social capital, most of it in fiiendship
networks, than many people who were more affluent (Boisjoly, Duncan, and Hofferth,
1995). It is possible, nonetheless, that the poor still are disadvantaged with respect to
social capital, with their perceptions of access proportionate to their existing position.
While they are able to get their basic needs met their resources are themselves limited in
what they have to offer. This suggestion does not denigrate the social capital which is
available, but simply points out that if it is all found within the restricted boundaries of
friendship networks, there are limitations to what the social capital can offer, even if it is

proportionately a fair amount. Again, where necessary, religious congregations may be in

55
a unique position to help people identify intangible offerings which they may exchange
with others, and to offer an environment conducive to that exchange.

However, there is one more dynamic which is not accounted for with respect to
models of social capital development, one which can again be illustrated with the analogy
of financial capital. Persons who have too little money to meet their own needs are unable
to save money as an investment. Instead they are forced to spend all that they have, often
before they have it. In addition, when they do receive more than they need, lacking
understanding of and being unpracticed in the art of investment, they often spend all that
they have rather than judiciously investing their excess. The same may occur with social
capital. If there is a sudden abundance of social capital, which in this scenario is a
resource for a person with very little to get his physical needs met, there may be a
tendency of the person to spend all the social capital which is made available. Part of the
definition of social capital is that it is used to mutual benefit. Persons who have had little
social capital available may have little skill in investing social capital or in the mutual
benefit aspects of social capital, leading them to “spend it all”. Once it is spent, it may be
difficult for them to be resupplied in the same setting, if they have exhausted their social

capital credit.

Social capital and civic involvement of its holders
Social capital is seen by many as being critical to the success of representative
government, and implicitly, to the success of all society under that government. In the

early 1800’s, political and religious leaders (generally the same people), struggled to

56

define the political structures and norms of the United States, including issues of
separation of church and state. Some early leaders of apparently considerable influence,
such as Leonard Bacon and Lyman Beecher, understood a successful free society as
needing to have institutions which promoted interaction and action on the part of its
citizens (Hall, 1994). Trust and informal governance or enforcement of social norms in
addition to the formal laws of the society seem integral to the cohesion of a democratic
society. Social capital, although unnamed as such, was assumed to enhance both the
formal and the informal structures of society, although as Putnam (1995a) points out, the
precise benefits of social capital are yet to be clearly defined. This caveat is important, for
although some of the possible benefits of social capital are enticing, there is not firm
evidence regarding its role in society, or even its definition. Levi (1996) in a critique of
Putnam’s Laking Democracy Work asserts that he has not made a case for the
connections between social capital and civic involvement. Newton (1997) almost bitingly
questions why voluntary organizations are held in such high esteem with respect to social
capital development. He points out that family, and even educational level, are far more
influential in the development of civic involvement. Clearly, even as research such as this
present study examine the potential places and ways in which social capital can be
developed, more research is needed on the precise efi‘ects of social capital when it is
present.

Putnam believes that social capital is a key resource which determines the civic
health of a society. Newton (1997) elaborates the mechanisms by which social capital is

presumed to develop into civic involvement:

57

“Social capital is a subjective phenomenon composed of a range of
values and attitudes of citizens that influence or determine how they relate
to each other. Particularly important are attitudes and values relating to
tnrst and reciprocity because these are crucial for social and political
stability and cooperation. ...social capital focuses on those cultural values
and attitudes that predispose citizens to cooperate trust, understand each
other... Therefore, social capital is important because it constitutes a force
that helps bind people together by transforming individuals from self-
seeking and egocentric calculators, with little social conscience or sense of
mutual obligation, into members of a community with shared interest,
shared assumptions about social relations and a sense of the common good

(575-576).”

Implications

If Putnam’s analysis of social capital and its link to both trust and civic
involvement are correct, then there are profound implications for the ongoing political
press to get churches and other local nonprofits to take on the task of working with
persons who are in need. First, there may not be enough people to serve as volunteers or
supporters of the organizations which are expected to provide services for those who are
in need, because they do not belong to the organizations. That is, social capital may be
limited within the organizations themselves. The impact on firnding potential is also

suspect then, if solely from the perspective that more members will mean more

58
contributors. In fact, there are data, to be discussed later in this paper, suggesting
declining membership and participation in many denominations. The difi‘erence between
simply holding membership or attending as compared to participating in an organizations
may be important, although dificult to discuss in more than a theoretical sense. That is,
social capital has to do with the establishment of relationships between people, with
creation of networks, neither of which may occur if one simply holds membership.
Joining, which is the requisite to trust, seems to suggests active participation rather than
just nominal membership (Putnam, 1995b). The issue of charitable contributions will
also be further discussed in a later section, particularly in light of the established link
between volunteering and contributions (Hodgkinson, Weitzrnan, Abraharns, Crutchfield,
and Stevenson, 1996).

The other implication, however, is that there is a need for churches and other
organizations to work at the development of social capital. The call has been for churches
to assist the needy. If one accepts the concept that society is strengthened by the presence
of lots of social capital, and conversely weakened by its decline, then there should be
some purposeful effort to build social capital, even though it is usually generated as a
coincidental by-product of social interaction (Coleman, 1988). There is good reason to
consider that churches, the most ubiquitous of all nonprofit organizations, are even more
critically needed in the area of social capital development than in provision of human
services alone. The religious function of congregations is certainly their primary concern,
but as they are called to greater involvement in the response to persons in community

rather simply in providing religious services to members, this distinction between social

59
capital and concrete services needs to be understood. The unique nature of religious
congregations ought to be understood and utilized for unique purposes, given the presence
of so many other nonprofit and voluntary organizations in the United States.

Even if Putnam’s assertion that social capital is essential to the well being of
democratic society or his overall analysis that social capital is declining is wrong, it still
seems critical for organizations such as religious congregations to be involved in activities
which will increase social capital across communities. It will been argued in a later section
that an excess of social capital, even in organizations which have fundamentally positive
goals, may be detrimental to society if they are driven by dissatisfaction with society or are
primarily self serving (Berrnan, 1997). In order to maintain social cohesion in the face of
such potential fragmentation, larger mediating stnrctures, such as those of government,
are net. ' i d. However, it is clear that there is a some portion of US. citizens who have
lost traditional access to the social capital they need personally, although the dynamics of
that loss are still being explored and the extent of that loss is not fully documented.
Religious congregations are accessible to persons in all areas, including rural areas which
may have very few other voluntary organizations available due to sparse population.
Urban areas tend to breed negative social capital in the form of street gangs (one hesitates
to describe them as youth gangs, as members are often adults), while similar organizations
in rural areas emerge as militia. However, for a variety of reasons, much of the emphasis
of policy has been on urban areas. The value structures which religious congregations
may be able to impart and their widespread accessibility suggest them as potentially good

sources of alternative social capital.

60

Gardner (1996) describes families and communities as the sources of shared values
and ethical systems in society, with religious organizations serving as one of the
intermediary types of organizations in communities which support and develop what
others call social capital, along with assuring the presence of freedom in society. He
points to communities as a rich source of the motivation of members to acting in
extraordinary ways. He goes firrther, pointing out that for a variety of reasons,
communities are breaking down, and that there needs to be an effort through the
preservers, family and communities, to counter the breakdown. Since the traditionally
overlapping areas of work, school, church, and neighborhood have ceased to overlap,
those which remain must be strongly engaged in the process of developing and preserving
those elements which constitute strong communities. Religious congregations seem one
of the remaining viable places for that engagement to occur (Gardner, 1996).

Other more contemporary ways of developing social capital need to be
understood, including by religious organizations. The positive and negative aspects of the
Internet and computer technology as resources for churches to engage in social ministry
are being explored in some quarters of the Christian community. The Other Side. a
progressive Christian periodical, devoted its May/June, 1997 issue to discussion of role of
technology in religion. Egan (1997) describes an innovative program, a collaboration of a
variety of non-profit and for-profit organizations, which is teaching computer and
particularly Internet skills to persons in low-income, inner-city Philadelphia
neighborhoods. The program includes fi'ee access to the Internet for participants. It is

clear that there is interaction, hence social capital developing. The cycle of interactions

61
appears to be this: teachers and mentors taught teens, who in turn formed a collective to
themselves teach the computer skills and increase technology access in their
neighborhood. Their use of the Internet firrther expands their social capital. “The Internet
demands interaction” and “As they learn, they teach: their fiiends, teachers, and
families”(29). Symbolic communities are available to them through the Internet, but their
engagement with their mentors and with Internet also gives them social capital and
prompts them to develop social capital, along with human capital with others in their

geographic community as well.

Social capital development in youth and children

Arguably children and youth may be the population whose social capital
development is most critical, although it is not the purpose of this paper to present
extensive developmental theory regarding values and attitudes. Gardner (1996) refers to
the fairly recent surge in street gangs as evidence of the need for social capital, with youth
who are seeking networks and social engagement through the structures which are
available to them. As Putnman (1995b) points out, these are negative social capital
structures. Weiss (1996) also suggests that many youth currently do not have adequate
access to acceptable forms of social capital development opportunities, and points out that
the General Social Survey, which is a frequent data source of social capital measures, does
not include youth under 18. Thus the state of social capital for youth is more dificult to
infer than is that of adults (which is itself far from conclusive).

Youniss, McLellan and Yates (1997) found that youth who are more engaged in

‘4
V'—

62
voluntary associational activities are more likely to be involved in voluntary memberships
organizations as adults. They point out that many programs for youth emphasize civic
involvement and service to others. This lends support to the idea that organizations such
as churches should actively seek to develop meaningful activities for youth.

Findings which show education as a consistent predictor of civic involvement are
also relevant to increasing social capital among youth (N orris,1996; Brady, Verba and
Schlozrnan, 1995). It may be that one critical firnction of social capital development for
children and youth is that of assuring at-risk youth succeed educationally, which will have
the added benefit to society of increasing their later civic involvement. The direct benefits
of educational success are a given.

Yates and Youniss (1996) have developed a model which seeks to explain the
impact of voluntary action on adolescent identity formation. Their study, which evaluated
written reflections of youth concerning volunteer experiences in a soup kitchen, suggested
the experience encouraged youth to be increasingly able to reflect on external meanings.
That is, they were transcendent in their thinking concerning their situation compared to
that of the others (recipients). While the descriptive design precluded drawing
conclusions, their work suggests that such volunteer opportunities changes the social
conscience of youth in some way.

Hagan, MacMillan, and Wheaton (1996) examined another potential factor in the
development of social capital on children, the impact of family mobility. While Putnam
(1996b) states that there is no more mobility than existed in the past, mobility is present

and fi'equent moves disrupt social networks. In addition, Hagan and his associates point

63
out that due to the shifting economic climate of the past two decades, the reasons for
mobility are more likely to be perceived negatively by the persons forced to move or with
uncertainty (as these are unwanted changes), compared to the economic period preceding
this one. What they found was that for families who moved frequently there was
considerable disruption in community networks and connections. From the opposite
perspective, Sampson (1988) found that there were positive relationships between length
of residence in a community and individual fiiendship ties, between attachment to
community and level of participation in social activities. All of these are likely sources of .
social capital. Thus it is reasonable to infer that when there are moves, there is less social
capital, probably for all family members, but especially for children in the family. The
disruption of family ties, a primary source of social capital, appears to be another factor in
decreasing social capital (Boisjoly, Duncan, and Hofferth, 1995). In addition there was in
the Hagan, Mach and Wheaton study a finding that children’s educational
achievement decreased. Putnam (1995a) has noted the strong positive relationship
between educational achievement and the amount of social capital as well as civic
involvement of individuals. Thus, these children appear very vulnerable to educational and
social capital deficits as adults.

Hagan, McMillan and Wheaton (1996) found that parental involvement was a
factor in offsetting losses in social capital of their children. Coleman (1988)’s findings
suggest that their ability to ofi‘set those losses for their children may be limited, perhaps by
their own inability to generate new social capital when they move. He analyzed the effects

of parental mobility on educational attainment of youth, as measured by drop-out rates,

64
suggesting that parental social capital is decreased for mobile parents. Coleman found,
using data from the 1985 and 1986 data sets of the High School and Beyond survey, that
families that never moved had an 11.8% drop-out rate between grades 10 and 12, 16.7% if
there was one move, and 23.1% if there were two moves. The analysis included other
variables, such as familial socioeconomic status in a multiple regression, but this variable
was the strongest in overall effect. Thus, these children appear very vulnerable to social
capital deficits as adults.

The impressions of this author are that there is a subset of mobile families which is
very impoverished and is mobile within, rather than between, towns due to lack of
personal financial resources for housing which may be at the greatest risk of social capital
disruption. That is, they move frequently fiom neighborhood to neighborhood. One
repercussion of such mobility is school disruption. While it is dificult to establish a clear
relationship between poverty and mobility, a review of the mobility and subsidized lunch
program rates in elementary schools in Lansing, Michigan does serve as an indicator.
Mobility is defined as the percentage of students who came or left during the school year
and figures reported here were part of a series on the Lansing schools by the Lansing Stat;
Mal; (1997). In 1996-97, the schools which have the lowest mobility rates (MR) also
have the lowest rates of subsidized lunch programs (LP). Attwood and Averill had rates
of 16.8% (MR):33.3% (LP) and 22.5% (MR):37% (LP) respectively. The schools with
the highest rates of mobility had the highest participation rates in lunch programs.
Bingham had an MR of 57.6% with 90% LP, Grand River had 72.1% MR with 81.2%

(LP), and Walnut Street had 71.2% MR with 81.0% (LP). The obvious exception was

65
Holmes Street School, an magnet school for language, culture, and communication arts,
which had 24.6% MR with 82.3% (LP), suggesting that there are conditions which can
offset school disruption.

These numbers are in no way intended to be a statistical analysis, as there are
varying patterns in the mid-range schools and this is simply impressionistic. Further, there
are high rates of mobility for all schools, regardless of the lunch program participation.
Only four schools of the 35 have mobility rates less than 20% while ten schools have
mobility rates over 50% Lansing State Journal, 1997). The point remains the same:
access to social capital is impaired by mobility and there appears to be very high mobility
for children in this community.

Thus, the possible role of religious congregations in initiating the development of
social capital with these families, whom Hagan, McMilland and Wheaton (1996)
characterize as relatively isolated in their communities and whom Coleman (1988)
describes as having lost social capital, seems potentially critical. It is not clear, however,
whether most churches have the skills
or the interest in reaching out to this population. One encouraging finding is that families
in very poor neighborhoods reported more access to social capital than others, apparently
in fiiendship networks (Boisjoly, Duncan, and Hofferth, 1995).

The potential of using technology tools, including the Internet may have particular
potential for young people. They may already be learning computer technology through
school, but may lack access, which could be provided through religious congregations or

others.

66

Religious congregations as social capital development agents

Uehara (1990) points out that one of the interests of social exchange theorists is
the relationship between the exchange and the solidarity of the group. She suggests that a
number of theorists assume that obligation, trust, and COOperation are products of the
exchange and are created between the exchanges. These in turn lead to solidarity of the
group which is the source of these products. If one accepts that these are elements of the
exchange process, then forrnalizing community based networks, i.e. through use of
churches and volunteers, to assist those in need within our society has intriguing
possibilities. Certainly, this seems to suggest that the process of social exchange, to the
extent that there is equality and reciprocity i_s important to the development of social
capital.

The potential and real roles of religious congregations in providing social capital to
youth is an important one. Coleman (1988) points to the significant positive relationship
between religious participation and school completion. The effects remain even when
attendance at parochial schools is controlled for. He suggests this as an indication of the
critical importance of community based forms of social capital, and religious
congregations are the most easily accessed and pervasively available community
organization available to youth, regardless of their socio-economic status or type of locale.
It is also interesting to incorporate Uehara’s observations about exchange and the
solidarity of the group. In a time when many youth are achieving solidarity with groups

rich in negative social capital, the youth groups of religious organizations may form an

67
opportunity for them to achieve group solidarity - seemingly a particularly critical need for
adolescents - through a structure which provides values and social capital which is
intergenerational. It seems probable that these benefits would accrue even if the activities
of the youth groups are not overtly religious.

Unfortunately, there are two possible pitfalls of seeking to achieve true social
exchange which occurs without power difi‘erentials. One involves the potential preference
of the religious congregations (or rather, the individuals who comprise churches) to have
power in order to manipulate the recipients into more socially desirable behavior or
behavior more consistent with that valued by the church. This does not really involve
exchange in the above sense. The other possible pitfall is that reciprocity will become a
goal.

With respect to the first point, it is clear that many people needing assistance
engage in behaviors or have lifestyles which are not condoned by most religious
congregations. Thus, it may be difficult for those congregations to provide needed
services to those persons without attempting to manipulate the person’s behavior. For
example, persons with HIV/AIDS are often gay men or persons who have used drugs,
groups of people whose lifestyle is condemned by many churches. An undergraduate
student reported in a social work class taught by the author that her church had taken in a
man with AIDS, but it was okay because he had renounced his past sin. It was clear that
removing himself from his gay lifestyle was virtually a condition of receiving assistance
from the church as he was dying.

To address the second issue, one of the ways that reciprocity might be expected by

68
religious congregations is in attendance at and support for the congregation. While there
are benefits to giving opportunities to beneficiaries of assistance or even to encouraging
reciprocity, involuntary participation in religious activities as a condition for receipt of
other services is in many ways a contradiction of social work values. At the very least, it
is inappropriate because there are individuals who are actively involved in their own
religious activities, but who need services which are only available through a particular
other religious organization. Their religious preferences merit respect.

This is in no way to suggest that integration of religion into the services offered is
inappropriate in all instances, but rather to suggest that there needs to be caution shown in
that area. It has been suggested that one of the possible values of involving churches in
provision of services, which also develops social capital, is that the churches may offer a
value system which is socially and individually desirable. In most cases, the religious
aspects and the values are imbedded in each other. To the extent that this is true, it is
critical from a social work perspective that people be allowed to voluntarily participate in
those aspects of the services which are religious in nature on a voluntary basis. To borrow
from the 12-Step tradition, those aspects of the service delivery should be based on

attraction, not on obligation or even recruitment.

Social capital: Positive and Negative Aspects
Much has been made of the positive effects of social capital. The negative effects,
in much of the literature, have been little discussed. Rather, the general approach seems to

be based on an assumption that the existence of larger quantities of positive capital is

69
better, while less is worse. Two questions exist regarding positive and negative aspects of
social capital. One is whether the nature of social capital is positive or negative. The
other is whether the presence of social capital is positive or negative. Coleman (1988, 98)
does not attribute either to social capital, defining in neutral terms, and suggesting that the
same social capital may be useful in one situation, Vis a Vis accomplishing goals, and not
usefirl or even harmful in another, where it does not facilitate completion of goals.

Putnam (1995b) acknowledges the existence of negative social capital, illustrating
it in such a way as to suggest that the existence of negativity in social capital is related to
the type of organization in which it is found. Thus, activities or groups which reflect
positive social values are positive, and those which are inconsistent with the general social
norms or expectations, such as street gangs, are negative. Groups such as militias and the
KKK, then, would be viewed as generators of negative social capital.

This raises concerns about the need to understand what types of groups or even
formal organizations are the source of social capital development, particularly among
youth. There are many organizations which are clearly seen by the vast majority of society
as acceptable, whereas some are clearly seen by the same majority as negative. Thus there
is a difi‘erence in desirability between the social capital of youth gangs versus that
developed through youth clubs run by the YMCA. This points out the potential
importance of context within which social capital develops. Specifically, it suggests the
importance of organizations which reflect appropriate goals serving as the context for
developing social capital. Even churches, which are widely acceptable places for social

capital development, may be viewed negatively if one is in disagreement with the doctrine

70

or teachings of a particular church. That is, the goals toward which the group works may
be viewed as negative by others. A church group which actively works in opposition to
abortion may be viewed as a negative source of social capital by a pro-choice parent.

One might make an argument, however, that the sheer importance of social capital,
i.e. of building of social connections and trust, outweighs the disadvantage of having
social capital developed within or facilitated by organizations with whom one might have
disagreements, provided that the values of those organizations are within tolerance levels.
For example, a Catholic school might be an acceptable environment for a Protestant’s
child, while a street gang probably would not be. Many people seem to recognize the
importance of social capital, and depending on their access to resources, seem willing to
engage in satisficing behavior with respect to their decisions to seek development of social
capital for themselves or their children. There is an element of “something is better than
nothing” thinking in satisficing. Thus, churches might be accepted as sources of services
even though the resultant social capital is not Viewed as completely positive by the persons
who receive it. The social capital which is ofl‘ered participants as a result of services by
churches may not be viewed as usefirl, as it may only be available for a very limited
purpose, such as getting food. Intuitively, personal income would seem to be an
important factor in determining the ability of any given person or family to secure their
preferences with respect to the source of social capital or of having to resort to satisficing.
Persons with more limited income likely have fewer options with respect to where they
can seek social capital: money can buy connections as well as services.

There is a broader potential problem with the creation of even considerable

71
positive social capital, however. The nature of social capital is the development of ties
which facilitated people’s pursuit of goals, often goals which are self-serving. It is almost
inevitable that the goals of some groups will conflict with the goals of others, creating
conflict and factionalism (Berman, 1997, Foley and Edwards, 1997). The more social
capital which exists, the more potential there is for conflicting groups to use it to attain
control at the expense of other groups, in order to achieve their goals and for them to have
the means for aggressive pursuit of those goals. Some have suggested that this could
actually lead to social capital as politically disruptive or socially conflictive force, rather
than as a foundation for constructive participation in democratic processes and social
cooperation. Foley and Edwards (1997) point out that social capital is not a replacement
for political systems, as some politicians who espouse devolution, and even some
theorists, seem to believe. Rather, there is a need for overarching political institutions
which resolve or manage the conflicts and also assure the pursuit of collective, not just
individual interests (Minkoff, 1997). Functionally, while civil society may be encouraged
by the presence of strong positive social capital, political systems which are representative
and able to support governance must still exist to maintain stable democracies, in part by
providing the mechanisms which control the goal pursuit of those who have sufficient
social capital to detract from the well-being of those who have less (Diamond, 1994; Levi,
1996). Therefore, the role of religious congregations in providing social capital ought be
seen as a collaboration with governmental entities rather than, as some politicians seem to
be suggesting, a replacement for them.

Not surprisingly, even Internet forms of social capital development can lead to

72
either positive or negative social capital. Two recent incidents illustrate negative
applications. In one, groups of fans from rival soccer teams in Europe used the Internet to
arrange the time and place for a physical altercation related to their soccer rivalries. In
another, there was an Internet posting recruiting for gangs. While this later was found to
be a hoax, the possibility of using the Internet in this way is very real. In a more positive
example, periodically stories appear in the news of a group which first organized on the

Internet, subsequently deciding to meet, periodically to develop face-to-face relationships.

Reciprocity and social capital

Reciprocity, which has already been discussed somewhat, is an important aspect of
social capital. Reciprocity can be either specific/local or generalized. Essentially, there
can either be immediate, one-on-one exchange or a more diffused connection between the
time and the people in the exchange. This is similar to Uehara’s concept of indirect
exchange. In either conceptualization, people who have assisted others accrue a “social
debt”. Understood in this way, social capital is a form of collateral (Pildes, 1996) in which
trust and relationships allow people to get their needs met over time.

The idea of reciprocity seems important to this discussion of social capital for two
reasons. First, there is the potential for a considerable chain effect in exchanges occurring
within large networks, which could lead to the development of large amounts of social
capital. Exchange on a one-to-one basis assumes that the two individuals involved in the
exchange have mutually acceptable goods to exchange. It is often not the case that

individuals can meet each other’s preferences. Even within the context of a relationship

73
such as spousal dyad or a parent-child dyad, individuals are not able to accommodate all
of each other’s preferences (as anyone in such a dyad will gladly illustrate!) Thus, the
availability of extended networks within which there are chains of exchange, whether
formal or informal, makes it much more likely that there will be development of adequate
social capital.

A related issue is the fact that there are some people who may never have the
potential or ability, whether due to personal or economic limitations, to ever reciprocate in
a way which will be sufficient to prompt any exchange, if the primary motive of the
original giver is to achieve reciprocity. In addition, the civic participation of some person
in any society will of necessity be limited to that person’s human potential. Ifthose in
society who do not have the means to ofl‘er reciprocity or who do not have to ability to
make much impact through political participation, then the values of society will determine
what the relative worth of those persons is. Religious congregations are one of the places
where potentially social capital may be made available to persons who have limited
reciprocal or civic potential, as the values of the congregations will not necessarily hinge
on the return which those persons will make to them (individually or organizationally).
Reciprocity will be offered between those members who do have the ability to engage in
reciprocal behavior, or equality of reciprocity will be judged based on relative ability rather
than some absolute measure. Thus, the individual in the local church who is mentally
handicapped and who always needs a ride will be given a ride without the expectation that
he will ever give a ride or other compensation back. Further, the efforts he makes to assist

with activities at the church, even when they are not productive in accomplishing the

74
project goal, are credited as reciprocal efforts because they are intended as such by the
individual. Nelson (1983) pointed, for example, to a trend in Protestant church policy (c.
1980) of integrating persons who had mental retardation into the life of local
congregations.

Second, religious congregations and similar organizations ofl'er a ready
environment within which to develop social capital, as other sources or contexts of social
capital, such as accessible neighborhoods, have disappeared. Religious congregations may
actively encourage people to join or may recruit people into volunteering (Independent
Sector, 1988). Furthermore, they are organizations whose primary social goal is the
development of social networks. They are organizations which highly value reciprocity.
Gardner (1996) describes one of the needed steps in restrengthening communities as based
on shared tasks. Congregations seem logical places in which there can be increased
numbers of activities which involve shared tasks. The use of congregational members to
provide services to the community’s members who are in need could have the dual effect
of building community within the membership and between the members and the larger
community.

One potentially important factor with respect to the involvement of religious
congregations is suggested by Gardner (1996). Caring, trust and teamwork are essentially
to building community and to the development of social capital. Gardner identifies the
first step to building those elements as assuring that the process is inclusive. Persons in
“outsider” groups or minority groups need to feel that they belong. There is a risk that

religious congregations may be places where persons from some groups do not feel

75
welcome and accepted. To the extent that they do not, religious congregations are
handicapped in their potential role of building social capital, and hence, in strengthening
community. However, congregations may or may not be interested in overcoming that

particular barrier.

The role of religious congregations in social capital development

What, then, is the place of religious congregations in social capital development?
Part of that question is whether it makes any difference where and how the social capital is
developed. Does it matter whether there is a value context within which social capital
develops (Foley and Edwards, 1997)? Theories which posit that social capital simply
emerges from participation in associational activities fail to account for or provide any
guidance to questions of what the most beneficial types of social capital are and of how to
produce them. Two related issues have been discussed with respect to the effects of
having large stores of social capital in society. One is the tendency, as social capital assets
increase, for there to be increases in the amount of conflict which exists in society. While
conflict is not inherently detrimental to democratic social structures, and in fact may be
one of the elements which undergirds democracy, there is still a need for mediating
influences or structures to resolve conflicts as they emerge. The other is the tendency of
individuals to associate with others, often like themselves in some set of characteristics,
for the purpose of pursuing or advancing their individual interests in that interest area.
The combination of these two tendencies, increased conflict and pursuit of individual

interests with like persons, could easily be at the expense of the collective good of society

76
unless a third factor, there is also incorporation of a specific set of values which
encourages use of social capital for the collective good. All this suggests that it does
matter where and how social capital is developed, as values of the group and its members
influence how the social capital is used.

It is suggested here that religious congregations ofl‘er the integration of a set of
values which are generally accepted as positive in this culture. As has been discussed,
historically social unity in the United States has existed in part because the Protestant
mainline churches offered a similar set of values, allowing larger society to function within
a relatively common foundation upon which to make decisions as a society. Increasing
religious plurality in the U. S. and separation of church and state have challenged those
historical ties. However, the key point here is that there are values which are commonly
accepted within not just the Protestant Christian denominations but across the major
religions in the US, so that while the denominations may disagree quite sharply about
specific issues, there are values which are commonly accepted as appropriate. Thus, it
seems very reasonable to suggest that churches are a very acceptable place to produce
social capital, particularly when that social capital is in a form which can be utilized to
meet the needs of individuals within the communities.

The other argument for social capital development and exercise of social capital in
churches (keeping in mind that it is something to be used, not something which can be
simply stored) is that churches are likely to have the motivation to do it. Most economic
models of altruism assume that the individual engaged in a behavior which benefits others

is doing so with some expectation of benefit. Essentially, there is the expectation of

77
exchange, whether direct or not. While this may true generally, there is a different
expectation in Christian theology. Christian scriptures include an imperative to assist
those in need, regardless of one’s own benefit, and sometimes, even if there is a substantial
cost to self, up to and including death if necessary.4 The only form of reciprocity lies in an
potential ultimate reward in the afterlife by God. Thus, for many individuals who engage
in social exchange due to their personal religious beliefs, there is little or no expectation of
reciprocity at the present time, if ever. Certainly, this produces a different type of social
capital, for if people are willing to engage with others expressly for the purpose of
assisting others in getting their needs met, there are different opportunities. And frankly,
this leaves open the potential for a much more hopeful society. The religious
congregation can ofi‘er for the person who is in need not only a response to a concrete
need but also an avenue to social integration and social capital (Harris, 1994).

Ammennan (1996) recognizes that there is a difl‘erence, and suggests that religious
congregations are appropriate places for such development. She proposes that religious
congregations are places which create types of social capital which include moral and
spiritual dimensions. She points to societal expectations that religious congregations are
or will be places where there is a sense of belonging and trust, as with other voluntary
organizations, but with the added expectation from society that the congregations
themselves have a moral standing which exceeds that of other organizations. In addition,
religious congregations offer pre-existing symbols, rituals, and stories which help coalesce

participants, but which also give additional eternal meaning - the values and moral context

 

4 Matthew 17:25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will

78
- to the civic work in which congregations and their members engage in society (Wood,
1997). Tacitly and sometimes explicitly, religious congregations have been recognized as
being sources of positive social capital. The following story, on the heels of devastating
floods in the Plains states this spring of 1997 illustrates many of the above points
regarding the potential benefits of social capital development in churches:
“The Rev. Steve Loan of Winter Harbor, Maine, wrote to the Rev.
James Persons, pastor of Wesley United Methodist Church, Grand Forks,
North Dakota, ‘We are sending this letter along with the cash collected ...
to let you know who we are and to tell you how God has worked in our
lives.’
Loan told how Gouldsboro, a 34-member church on his Schoodic
Circuit5, closed last November when worship attendance dropped to three.
Loan was persuaded to hold Easter services, however, and 11 people
came. Then came news about the Red River flooding and finally the Grand
Forks disaster. ‘We realized we could do something event though we were
small in size’... Members contacted UMCOR", got a supply list and began
collecting; soon the other churches on the circuit... joined the efi‘ort.
They got larger stores such as the local Wal-Mart to act as

collections points; sent letters to 32 area churches; involved community

 

find it.

5 United Methodist appointments, when churches are small, may include a number of churches, called
circuits from the time when pastors rode on horseback preach to a circuit of as many as 15 local churches.
This circuit appears to have three churches.

6 UMCOR is the United Methodist Committee on Relief. which among other responsrbilities, coordinates
all relief efforts, locally, nationally,or globally.

79
groups, a 4-H and local grammar schools.

‘The day care section of a local nursing home held a car wash and
collected 369’, Loan wrote. ‘It was a great sight to see them sitting in
their wheel chairs spraying cars while the nurses scrubbed the cars.’

For four weeks cash and supplies came in from these little United
Methodist churches. Gouldsboro members contact Service Master
headquarters; because of their efforts 23 Service Master distributors
around the nation each contributed $200 worth of supplies. The final
project was a Bean Supper. . ..

‘We are sending 23 cartons of supplies from the UMCOR list of
needs... [and] a check for $600 for you to use as you see fit. These come
with our love and hopes that life will return to normal for you as soon as
possible.’ UPS shipped the cartons to Grand Forks free of charge.

Is that the end of what Pastor Loan called the ‘Maine to Midwest’
connection? He wrote, ‘While we started this project as a way to help
others, we have been greatly blessed by the Lord in the process. Our little
church has come alive again. We have had as many as 35 at worship, two
baptisms, and five people signed up to join.’

The Gouldsboro, Maine, congregations said they want to stay in
touch with Wesley Church as a sister congregation (Fisher, 1997). "

This Vignette illustrates the potential place of religious congregations in developing

social capital, the effectiveness of strong social capital, some of the benefits of such

80
capital, and the effect of having this capital in churches with respect to altruistic behavior.
First, the issue of motivation in helping others. This account does not address the
question of motive, but simply states that the congregation, which had not met apparently
even at Christmas did gather for Easter which can be considered the highest holy day for
Christians. At that time some member or members of the congregations decided that there
should be an effort to assist those in need due to a natural disaster. Those in need were
located at a great distance, as this congregation is in Maine and the one in need is in North
Dakota. Thus, it is improbable that the Maine congregation, unsure even of its future
existence, engaged in this act of altruism with any expectation of reciprocity - at the time
of their decision, their congregation had been firnctionally closed for five months. The
only possible reciprocity was very indirect, either insurance against being left to sufi‘er in
the event that they themselves should suffer a similar misfortune in the future or some
reward in the afterlife. It is worth considering that the religiously-based values of the
congregation, that they should give to others in need, lead them to assist without thought
for their own return.

Second, the Gouldsboro church had greatly reduced membership and participation
of those who remained. While it is not possible to be sure, there appears to have been
quite limited social capital, except that there was social capital within the connections
between the circuit churches and the pastor had some store of social capital from the
denominationally-based connections in which all United Methodist ministers are imbedded.
It is obvious that a great deal of social capital was generated in the efforts they made to

secure relief supplies for another congregations with whom they had only symbolic

81
connections. In fact, the connections which were formed with the congregation in North
Dakota appears to be a form of social capital such as that described by Minkoff (1997) in
her description of social movements.

Social capital appears to have been formed throughout the communities of the
Schoodic Circuit, starting with the Gouldsboro community. That congregation clearly
involved other individuals, forming connections strong enough to prompt people to
actually begin to amliate with them, some through attendance and others through the
more formal rituals of baptism and membership in the church. Social capital involving the
other churches in the Circuit appeared to be developed as they joined the efi‘ort. And
certainly, social capital was developed for others, as the United Methodist congregations
involved 32 other area churches, a 4-H club, other community groups, and school
children. Even the local nursing home got involved. Contacts were necessary between
the various groups as shared efforts and coordination built social capital, which is now
available for other purposes to all the participants in this highly successful efi‘ort to address
the needs of others. Presumably some of the social capital which was developed will be
preserved, as evidenced by the revitalization of the congregation which initiated the efi‘ort.

In addition to the social capital formed within what are primarily voluntary
organizations, there was also social capital development which involved for-profits
entities. These minimally included businesses such as Wal-Mart who donated space for
collection points, as well as others, UPS and Service Master, whose contributions and
possibly social capital connections were made at regional levels. Thus, the levels at which

social capital were developed appear extraordinary, given that the efforts began in a

82
congregations where no more than 11 people (those who met on that Easter Sunday and
their pastor) were the originators of this effort which resulted in 23 cartons of supplies and
donations of over $5000 to assist persons whom the helpers had never met. This single
example illustrates how even a small religious congregation can be the catalyst for
generating multiple levels of social capital, and how the religious congregations existing
social capital and shared values can be the basis for further development of social capital.
It also shows how a congregation, even a very small one, can be instrumental in generating
needed resources to address a social problem.

One final point which is critical to address is the issue of diversity as it relates to
the involvement of religious congregations in development of social capital or provision of
services of any type. While many types of voluntary organizations have been the domain
of upper- or middle- income persons, religious organizations are comprised of persons
from different economic strata. In a general sense, many organizations are organized
around the homogeneity of the members. Congregations are places where the usual
defining characteristics are not pursued, although they may be self-selecting within specific
denominations. Voluntary organizations are places where civic capital - the leadership
skills needed for political participation - are developed (Ammerrnan, 1996). Social capital
and civic capital are linked, being products of the structures which allow democratic
society to firnction effectively. Since the development of social and civic capital is
available to all persons through them, congregations provide an expanded source of
capital as compared to other voluntary organizations. However, social capital is also a

tool which allows individuals to get their needs met.

83

The potential role of religious congregations for both these roles, given the
accessibility to all communities, is quite promising. For example, the creation of many
Afiican—American churches was the result, in part, of the need for social capital in that
community (and the denial of access to that social capital from the white members of
churches), and those churches continue to be effective sources of social capital (Hall-
Russell, and Kasberg, 1996). The Afi'ican-American churches’ engagement in economic
development work within communities is an indicator of the social capital potential of
religious congregations for persons in lower-income communities. For example, First
AME in south-central Los Angeles secured a one million dollar grant from Disney
Corporation following the unrest which followed the Rodney King verdict. Further, it has
developed, with Disney’s support, a program placing young African-American youth from
that inner-city community at DisneyLand as employees (Whitlock, 1997). This type of
social capital development might not happen without the credibility and the commitment
of the church. It also illustrates the potential of churches in social capital development for
youth.

The potential role of religious congregations in bridging the usual boundaries
which exclude people based on characteristics can also be seen in the story of the
Gouldsboro church. While ethnic/racial boundaries may not be bridged (this is in Maine,
after all, where there may not be much racial diversity to bridge), it is evident that the
efi‘orts of this congregation crosses generational boundaries, for example, as grammar
schools and nursing homes became part of the relief effort.

The success of community organizing efl‘orts in inner cities, efl‘orts which are

84
church-based, show the potential for religious congregations to be the source of social
capital which directly links low income families to the political process in an efi‘ective way
(Wood, 1997). Wood notes the differential in the interpersonal trust present within
different congregations, suggesting the inappropriateness of assuming that religious
congregations are always available sources of this form of social capital. However, the
value structure of religious congregations (i.e. the theological roots and teaching of most
religious congregations) would seem to predispose them to more effort at building trust
among members than might occur in other voluntary associations whose primary goal is
more limited, such as would be true of bowling leagues. This could be an important
element, in combination with the ability of churches to cross social strata, in developing
trust.

There is also another model, that of churches which have expressly committed to
community building, not necessarily within their own congregations but in the
neighborhood in which they are located. Staral ( 1995) describes a Lutheran church in
Wisconsin which purposefully shifted its approach to the community, broadening its
definition of ‘the church’ to include persons who resided in the surrounding neighborhood
but who did not attend church firnctions per se. The church developed what they labeled
peer ministers to “serve as a further link between the church and the community (133)”, or
in other words, to develop social capital for the neighborhood.

Levi (1997), drawing on the work of Hardin (1993) and David (l985)7’ describes a

cycle of distrust. Those who have learned to distrust, presumably whose who are

85

marginalized or disadvantaged, fail to realize the benefits of trust. Those who trust
continue to realize the benefits of that trust with two effects. First, their trust is reinforced
and the gap, politically and economically, between those who trust and those who do not
widens. Secondly, this widening gap reinforces the distrust of those who are at the
margins already. With their potential to reach those in society who do not trust, religious
congregations have the potential for involving persons currently disengaged from political
participation by building trust and social capital with them. This begs the issue, however,
of whether churches are willing and able to actually engage persons who have been
marginalized. This questions will be addressed by the present study, as it examines the
tendency of United Methodist Churches to respond to the needs of specific populations,
those which are marginalized and those which are less so, along with groups such as
welfare recipients about whom there is considerable ambivalence. 8

Finally, religious congregations seem an appropriate place to encourage the pursuit
of social capital development because they seem to produce it. The link between religious
participation and both volunteering and individual contributions has been established quite
clearly (Independent Sector, 1988; Greeley, 1997), and is discussed in detail in other
sections. However, the sheer efl‘ectiveness of religious congregations in generating
volunteering and financial support for both the congregations themselves and other

voluntary organizations suggests that they are appropriate places for the development of

 

7 Hardin, R (1993). The street level epistemology of trust, Politics & Society. 21, 505-29 and David, P.
(1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Eco&mic Review. 75, 332-7.

8 It is interesting to note that such ambivalence, which reflects social attitudes regarding addressing
poverty and social problems. is not new. This is evident in comments by Ward (1915), who suggested that
an attitude of contempt must be replaced by an attitude of sympathy. He described the debate about

86
social capital. Again, this does not address the issue of what the capacity of religious

congregations is in actually increasing their work in this area.

The limits of willingness or ability to help

One argument being made here is that there is both a tendency on the part of
churches to assist others for reasons unique to their religious nature and a tendency to be
constrained about who to help and for how long to help them. Two approaches will be
suggested as to factors which might limit the participation of churches in helping behavior,
one theoretical and the other practical. Social exchange theory explains factors related to
tendency to assist others, given an environment and norms which lead to a belief that there
will be reciprocity from some part of the social network. Social exchange theory also
suggests some explanations for why people might discontinue to engage in the exchange
relationship. One additional area has been suggested as well, that persons who are
socially stigmatized, presumably by their behavior, are less likely to be the beneficiaries of
altruistic behavior. While there are not doubt a variety of ways to explain the differential
altruistic behavior, Schneider and Ingram (1993) have offered a very useful model. They
propose that there are two dimensions along which people are judged by others as
potential recipients of altruism. One is essentially their social acceptance level by others
and the other is the amount of social power which they have. People who are seen
positively along both dimensions will receive the most favorable treatment, and persons

who are seen as negative in both dimensions will be least likely to receive assistance. In

 

whether a person on relief should be going to see a movie. (Ward clearly felt they should) This is not so

87
this model, altruism can be understood as the willingness to assist, not necessarily the need
of the person for assistance, since those with most power often are well-equipped
financially to provide for themselves. Those who are seen as positive/positive are unlikely
to receive much assistance from voluntary organizations for that reason.

Within the negative/negative dimension, one would find persons who are most
stigmatized in society: prostitutes, prisoners, gays/lesbians, drug addicts and persons with
HIV/AIDS who fit any of these previous groups. A look at this grouping makes clear that
all these groups may be viewed as responsible for their own condition through engagement
in one or more stigmatized behaviors. There is likely to be far less altruism and therefore
far less inclination to target people for assistance if they fall in this category, in part
because of aversion to their behavior and in part because they are perceived as having
caused their own problems. This is reflected in comments such as those which the author
has overheard, for example, at displays of the AIDS quilt, “I feel worst about the children
because they are innocent victims.” The implication is that they are somehow exempt
from judgments because they are not responsible for the disease. Thus, persons who fall
within these groups are likely to be under-served.

Those who have power (positive) but who are to be Viewed negatively are also not
likely to be the recipients of much altruism, although more that the negative/negatives. In
this group one might find persons who have power, such as politicians, but about whom
others have negative opinions in general. This might also include persons who are rich, as

they are often viewed negatively (even when, or perhaps because other people wish they

 

far from current debates about welfare recipients should have cable TV service.

88
could be rich).

While there is reason to believe that some churches will be more inclined to target
persons in the negative/negative group, it seems more probable that with limited
resources, even churches will tend to prefer to offer available resources to populations
which are viewed as more acceptable. Given the orientation of Christian churches, in
particular, to serve “the e and the mild” it seems probable that the populations which
churches would be most inclined to assist are those who are viewed positively but who
have little power. These populations would include women, children, youth, and senior
citizens, or persons experiencing problems such hunger and domestic Violence. This
tendency to select populations based on the amount of social stigma with which they are
associated may be actually more prevalent among religious congregations, as what may be
personal opinions and social mm in the general population are potentially a deeply held
component of an entire moral/religious belief system for church members. As suggested
elsewhere, if one is a member of a stigmatized population, the conditions for receiving
assistance may include renouncing and abandoning stigmatized behaviors or membership
in a stigmatized group.

The other, pragmatic issues related to expansion of services by religious
congregations have been suggested elsewhere. The restructuring of the social welfare
system in the United States has been in progress for approximately 17 years as of this
writing. It is simply not realistic to believe that there is infinite capacity of the local
religious congregations to expand their services. Wineburg (1994), in a detailed analysis

of the relationships between social service providers and religious congregations in

89
Greensboro, North Carolina, describes the extensive expansion of church support for
existing social service providers, both secular and faith-based. He points out that Catholic
Charities alone in the US. had an increase of 700% in volunteers during the Reagan/Bush
years. Greensboro experienced a huge increase in resources made available by
congregations to local agencies, pointing out for instance that 69% of the organizations
receiving church funds first got them during those years. Wineburg states, “There is no
doubt that the religious community can expand its service efforts. It is simply wrong to

assume that it has an unlimited capacity to expand (51).”

Summary of social capital issues
Social capital is clearly a useful and provocative concept, one which lends

itself to research and discussion of current trends in participation in voluntary associations,
including religious congregations, and of trends in civic involvement. Putnam has done
credible work in presenting a beginning framework for conceptualizing social capital and
its link to civic involvement. However, it is clear that there are difficulties in the way he
operationalizes social capital and in the causal relationships which he describes. Still, the
concepts he presents and which others have debated and developed are a useful
framework for this study.

Several ideas suggest themselves here. First, while it is difficult to tease out the
exact causal relationships between them, social capital, educational achievement,
volunteering, and civic responsibility appear to be linked. The direction of causality seems

to be that social capital, often that found in families but also that added in communities, is

90
important in encouraging educational success. Education, in turn, appears to be a strong
predictor of civic involvement. In addition, participation in voluntary organizations
appears to contribute to social capital, and subsequently, to civic participation, particularly
for youth. Thus social capital contributes to civic involvement directly and indirectly.
These several relationships leave open in the possibility of a spurious correlation, such as
educational background of the parents as the cause of educational achievement, voluntary
participation, and adult civic involvement of youth. However, there are indications that
this is not the case. For example, McAdam’s (1988) work compared the later civic service
activity, values and activism of people who participated in Mississippi Freedom Summer
activities to those of who were supposed to go but weren’t able to do so. The former
were considerably higher rating in all the categories, suggesting that they were influenced
directly by their participation.

Although the precise relationship between social capital and civil capital is not yet
fully researched, there appears to be suficient evidence of the existence of a relationship
between the two to merit the working assumption that one way to increase people’s civic
activity is through participation in voluntary associations. Volunteering with others, for
example in a religious congregation, is one way to expand those associations. Depending
on the specific activity or structure of their involvement, there may well be social capital
for the participants (otherwise called service recipients or clients) as well. This would
suggest that the structure of any programs offered ought to be developed for the purpose,
in addition to any primary goals, of providing social capital development opportunities.

The other issue of relevance is that although operationalizing social capital is

91
diflicult, the most reliable measures at present seem to be the amount of participation in
voluntary organizations in which people engage. While this is a proxy, the assumption is
that where there are opportunities for people to build networks with one another ,
particularly when the purpose of the interaction is to facilitate one person getting his or
her needs met, then the interaction will lead to an increase in social capital. Thus
increased opportunities within congregations for involvement by non-afiiliated persons in
programs will have the potential of increasing social capital for two groups of persons.
First, the congregations’ members who participate in the planning and implementation of
the programs will increase their own social capital. Second, to the extent that programs
are structured to involve interaction between providers and participants, it can be assumed
that some participants will also develop additional social capital.

In addition to the value of social capital with respect to civic involvement, it is
critical to the ability of individuals and families in getting their various needs met. Thus,
social capital is an important resource to have as broadly distributed as possible across a
community. As more formal sources of support for families, the so called social safety
net, are reduced, the presence of social capital in the form of informal sources of that
support become increasingly important. The role of religious congregations in developing
that social capital needs to be better understood and measured.

Those points lead to one final issue given the purposes of this study. That is, if
there has been a decline in membership and participation in mainstream Protestant
churches, and this paper will ofl‘er evidence that there has been, is there adequate social

capital within the congregation, and specifically within the United Methodist Church of

92
West Michigan, to allow them to focus efforts on building social capital and offering
services within their communities. Do the churches themselves have the capacity to
engage in activities which have the potential to develop social capital in their

communities?

Theological perspectives

While it is outside the scope or purposes of this paper to present a firlly articulated
theological description of Christian churches, or specifically the United Methodist
Church, it seems critical to understand the ways in which religious values of the provider
may affect decisions about whether to provide human services and the method of delivery
of any services. The fundamental source of theological understanding, the Bible, offers a
number of directives concerning assisting those in need. For example, Matthew 25:31-46
is perhaps most frequently referenced as Jesus directed his followers to feed the hungry,
give water to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, and Visit those in prison.
Luke 10:25-37 tells the story of the Good Samaritan, a story familiar to many. Jesus tells
his followers that they should love their neighbor as themselves. He then tells the story of
a man accosted and robbed who is first ignored by fellow Jews and then assisted by a
stranger, one who first binds his wounds, then takes him to an inn and pays for his lodging
and care there. One of the significant elements of that parable is the fact that the stranger
who assists the Jewish man left to die by his robbers is a gentile, a person with whom the
man would not have associated. Essentially, the first point of this parable is that people

should help those in need, without expectation of reciprocity; the second point of this

93
parable relates to diversity and racism. These represent just a sampling of the general
directives in scripture regarding the appropriate role of Christians in assisting those in
need, particularly the poor. However, these type of scriptures represent only a portion of
the scriptures. This section will elaborate on the theological orientations which influence
which scriptural texts are emphasized and how they are interpreted.

Certainly the theological context within which any human services are supported
or provided by the religious congregation is a key element in the structure of programs
provided, in any eligibility criteria for recipients or/and in the purposes of any service
provided, as well as a potentially key determinant in what, if any, services are provided at
all. As an example, services to a gay person with AIDS by a church which views
homosexuality as a sin (“an abomination”) may be contingent upon renunciation by that
person of homosexual behavior or relationships. Or, in a different type of example, the
pro-life stance of the Catholic Church leads to policies in Catholic Charities against
discussing abortion as an option with clients, even if the client comes to the agency
seeking counseling or assistance regarding pregnancy termination.

Thus, although Christian churches have a common base of sacred writings and,
one can argue common historical roots, the variations between denominations or
congregations can be astonishing. It is unclear that policy makers distinguish these
differences, or if they do, that they understand their relevance to policy development. Yet
these differences between congregations and denominations could profoundly affect both
willingness to engage in service provision and the manner is which such services are

provided. For example, different denominations have different individual giving patterns

94
(Donahue, 1994; Hoge and Yang, 1994; Hoge, Zech, McNamara, and Donahue, 1996),
with some emphasizing tithing and others not. The Catholic church is commonly known
to have a considerably lower per capita giving record than do the Protestant churches
(Greeley and McManus, 1987; Hoge, 1994; Hoge and Yang, 1994). Institutional
structures determine where decisions are made concerning the types of programs which
will be offered and how the funding will be delivered. At a very basic level, the structure
of any hierarchy will affect the balance of control between any hierarchy and the local
congregations. Much of the basis for these differences is directly attributable to
differences in theology.

At the risk of oversirnplification, two general themes form the base for theology in
Christian churches. One way to understand the theological differences between churches
is in the balance between these two themes, “good works” on the one hand and emphasis
on relationship with God (salvation) on the other. Thus, the theological spectrum within
which Christian churches fall can be conceptualized as a continuum. At one extreme is a
theology which understands acceptance of Christ as the sole means of achieving salvation,
leading to an emphasis on evangelism for the purpose of leading people to religious
experience. To the extent that services are provided, they are likely to be an ancillary to
overtly religious efforts, sometimes used as a means of getting non-affiliated persons to
participate in the religious activities of the church. Further, physical suffering and poverty
may even be seen as positives, ways of achieving greater unity with God. This can even
be seen in the attitudes of Mother Teresa, recently deceased, who focused on assisting

those in abject poverty to be comfortable in death, rather than seeking to change the

95
institutional sources of poverty. One news story of her death quoted her, when she was
asked what should be done about poverty, as saying something to the effect of “I don’t
know. I am trying to achieve poverty.” At the other extreme, doing good for others is
viewed as the means to salvation and recruitment of others to the religious organization is
not a priority.

Hoge, Zech, McNamara, and Donahue’s study (1996, 217) of giving in five US.
Christian denominations utilized a question concerning congregational theological
tendencies, with the answers suggesting one way of defining the difl‘erences in theological
context: (1) Helping others commit their lives to Christ. Personal morality and social
actions are secondary to this; (2) Helping to change unjust and oppressive social
structures or to alleviate human misery. Whether or not this helps people accept Jesus as
Savior is not the primary concern; (3) Following the life and teachings of Jesus as the
basis for spiritual growth and personal fulfillment; (4) Faithfully participating in the
tradition and sacraments of the Church. Other concerns are secondary to maintaining the
historical integrity and continuity of the faith. This framework illustrates the difl‘erences
between theological perspectives. The first and last of these reflect theological positions
in which attending to the physical and social needs of others is less important than
addressing spiritual needs, resulting in churches which are probably less likely to actively
engage in social ministry. The second and third answers reflect theological understandings
which seem more likely to lead members or local congregations to engage in social
ministries.

In another characterization, Nelson (1983, 118-119) described church theological

96
styles as
“(1) evangelical - characterized, with a focus on the central importance of
recognition of individual and collective sinfirlness and the necessity of reconciliation to
God through Jesus Christ, and a life of varied witnessing to the Gospel and its good news.

(2) fundamental - characterized by particular and complete acceptance and
affirmation of the inerrancy of the Bible and a personal dedication of life to Jesus Christ as
Savior and Lord.

(3) liberal - characterized by a diverse focus on reform and progress in the church
as he body of Christ on earth, tolerance for diversity, and a continual questioning of
Biblical interpretations, the mission of the church, worship forms, theological principles
and Christian lifestyles.

(4) Traditional - characterized by amrmation of and practice of an inherited faith
and beliefs, with an emphasis on leading a good Christian life and teachings of Jesus
Christ, and consistent with the tradition of the denomination.”

Johnson (1930), in a summary which is much more succinct, suggests there are
really two major tendencies of Christian churches, either an emphasis of the individual
process, which orients the work of the church toward some future ideal (presumably in the
afterlife) or the redemption of the world as a whole, from which then, the destiny of the
individual is inseparable. Using any of these frameworks for understanding the theological
stance of a denomination points to the fact that there will be central tendencies of churches
to be in the world tending to all needs of persons, spiritual and physical, or to be more

concerned with the spiritual aspects of their well-being, with little or less concern for their

97
physical needs. This description presents churches in a way which may imply coldness or
hardness on the part of some. It is not intended in that sense. Rather, it is important that
some churches or denominations will be disinclined to engage in activities related to non-
spiritual needs as these are seen as secondary. The resources of individual members could
be applied to these problems, but institutional resources would not.

Keith-Lucas (1962) who sought to merge social work and religion takes the more
pragmatic approach of describing the positions which result from these different
theological reference points. He suggested that the Christian church was confused about
its appropriate role with respect to serving the tangible needs of those in the world, then
proceeded to list and refute several of the positions. For example, some believed in
noninvolvement and felt that the church should simply be involved in spiritual concerns.
Keith-Lucas flatly rejected this position. He also dismissed the theologically different idea,
that the church should be involved in social welfare efforts solely for humanitarian reasons,
as being no different than the approach of a secular nonprofit.

What research is available on religions and their social involvement confirms that
differences between denominations do exist. Wilson and Janoski (1995) summarize
research on differences between denominations and point to the fact that liberal
congregations are twice as likely to be more socially active than conservatives. Wuthnow
(1991) found that there are differences between Catholics and Protestant churches in
charitable giving and other social services. Methodists twice as likely (15%) as Southern
Baptists to give high priority to causes which would benefit the community. (Wilson and

Janoski, 1995) In other areas, there are not differences, such as in the tendency of

98
Catholics to volunteer compared to Protestants (1997b).

As an example of that, a recent conversation by the author with an acquaintance
regarding her church membership provided the following information: The church, which
is a nondenominational, has attendance of over 2,000 people each weekend. The social
ministry of the church is quite limited, although the church has what appear to be quite
creative efforts, such as a meal before and a cappuccino and ice cream time following
worship on Friday nights. The mission money of the church is almost entirely devoted to
funding missionaries who are overseas. The sole local efi‘ort is the financial support for a
local crisis pregnancy center, which is usually a euphemism for a clinic which is intended
to divert young women from having abortions by offering a range of supportive services.
The church funds approximately V4 of the annual budget of the clinic. This church most
likely could be characterized under the Hoge, Zech, McNamara and Donahue (1992)
criteria as primarily focused on (1) helping others commit their lives to Christ.

This is in contrast to the Glide Memorial United Methodist Church, a mega-church
in San Francisco which has 39 community based programs ranging from emergency
services to support for persons living with AIDS and recovering from substance abuse to
job related training. It is even involved in condom distribution as part of its AIDS
prevention work. The expectation at Glide is that members will volunteer (Miller, 1997).
In addition, the church, as a United Methodist church, would also pay its annual
apportionment to the denominational infrastructure and system of social ministries based
on its membership of 6,400.

Wineburg (1994) looks at these difl’erences in a more systematic way. He uses

99

Roozen, McKinney, and Carroll’s (1984) typologies of civic mission and activist
orientation of churches in describing efforts of primarily mainline Protestant and Catholic
churches in Greensboro to respond in their community within the 1980’s and into the
1990’s. He presents evidence of difl’erences in willingness and type of involvement of the
diflerent churches with a more civic orientation. He also asserts that nationally it was the
mainline denominations, as opposed to the religious right which fomented much of the
change which occurred, who actually sought to increase services for those out ofl‘ by
changes in governmental programs. He characterized these local congregations as moving
from a civic orientation, in which the institution itself supports the status quo and is non-
confrontational, to an activist orientation in which the congregation is oriented toward
incorporation of social action into the life of the congregation for the purpose of achieving
a more just and humane society. The United Methodist Church is one of the
denominations which was participating in this transformational process in Greensboro. He
points to the involvement of the Black ministers in the area in the process as a key to the
transformation, an important point given the context of Afiican-American theology and
the history of activism by the African-American churches along with the not infiequent
functional segregation which still exists between white and black communities across the
United States.

The United Methodist Church perspective has been generally described as a
moderate (Roof and McKinney, 1987; Wilson and Janoski, 1995) or somewhat
conservative church (Hall, 1994). It is probably best understood as being a mixture of the

second and third Hoge, Zech, McNamara and Donahue (1992) criteria with perhaps more

100
emphasis on the third ‘following the life and teachings of Jesus as the basis for spiritual
grth and personal fulfillment’. Thus one should live out not just the spiritual, but also
the action aspects of the teachings.

While the nuances of the United Methodist Church’s theological positions are
necessarily too extensive to be adequately explicated in this dissertation, there is a certain
consistency across time in its understanding that institutionally and individually it has a
responsibility to the poor. Ward’s (1915) study guide regarding the church’s response to
poverty poses such questions for the lay person studying the topic as “What is the net
contribution to society of the rich women who work in social welfare and yet consume
luxuries? (66)” and “In some states the idle poor are jailed for vagrancy. Why should not
the idle rich have the same treatment? (70)” He contests the logic of what we would now
call trickle down economics, stating that those who consume, waste. The example he
gives is of the man with six cars who can only drive one. His capital is tied up in the five
cars he cannot drive. He could have hired five men for the cost of those cars, allowing
each of them to earn enough to buy a car, with the same effect on the overall economy.
Clearly, the theology of the then Methodist Episcopal Church over three quarters of a
century ago was that peOple should live out the teachings of the New Testament in very
concrete ways, not being content with merely addressing the needs of their souls. The
theological base of the denomination is substantively the same to this day, as can be seen
in the various positions found in the Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church
on AIDS, the environment, poverty, sexual assault, racism, and housing, to topics name

just a few of the dozens of resolutions (The United Methodist Church, 1996).

101

Research and Religious organizations

Research on the place of religious organizations in the nonprofit sector has been less
than comprehensive, suggesting answers to only a few of the current questions about the
capacity of the sacred institutions to involve themselves in providing or supporting
services to meet the types and magnitude of needs which are being sent to them by
politicians at the federal and state levels. Further, data which are available have limitations
in terms of understanding both the state of religious organizations and the ways in which
they are working on community problems.

Hall (1997a) points to the methodological problems inherent to studying church
based organizations. Definitional problems about which organizations ought be
considered religious and issues of institutional/ structural difl‘erences between
denominations are two of the larger problems. Jeavons (1993) understands organizations
to be in a continuum of “religiosity”, with purely religious on one end and clearly secular
on the other. In between are organizations which are a mixture of the two dimensions -
they are religious in some aspects and secular in others. For example, the franchise
religious organizations, while being supported financially by a particular denomination,
carrying the denominational afiiliation in their name, and perhaps reflecting particular
moral or value positions of the affiliated denomination in their provision of services,
generally provide social services which may be superficially indistinguishable from those of
their non-affiliated counterparts. Smaller local organizations might have a clear religious

focus to the provision of services. Nonetheless, the religious context, as Jeavons suggests,

102
likely affects many parts of the organization, including who seeks services from it and who
provides them, as well as how the organization firnctions.

Jeavons (1993) proposes using the following criteria for identification of religious
organizations: 1) sacerdotal primary purposes and activities; 2) identification of
themselves as religious given commitment to fields of work which are “typically and
appropriately associated with religious endeavors”; 3) participants, resources, products or
services and decision-making processes which are primarily religious in nature; 4)
participation in networks of organizations in which religion plays a major part.

Even, however, when organizations are clearly defined as religious, the structural
differences between them can confound efforts to compare different denominations and
religious institutions. Minimally, the hierarchical arrangement of the denominations vary.
Hall (1997a) describes a range of religious organizations. These could be flee-standing
congregations, with a variety of incorporation status and franchise form organizations,
with a range from monarchical rule to loosely-coupled denominational bodies. Structural
differences impact directly on the amount of local congregation decision-making which
can be done, including about acceptable forms and types of services to provide, as well as
on the degree of homogeneity of theological guidance between congregations and the
demands placed on the local congregations from some centralized authority concerning
local and denominational. Thus, for example, meaningful comparisons of non-
denominational (hence, nonaffrliated) churches with structurally integrated churches such
as United Methodists or Catholics are diflicult. The loci of control in the denominations

and the potential places where volunteers and funding could be used vary tremendously

103
fiom one local congregation to another. Thus, asking questions at a local congregational
level across denominations, as Hodgkinson , et a1. (1992) have done, may introduce bias
with respect to those churches where the local level is not primary. It is, for example,
impossible to adequately track and compare funding when the sources of reporting may
not control the expenditures and may not have access to the required information.
Surveying just one denomination, such as the United Methodist Church, allows a control
for this variable.

Finally, there is a difference between services ofl‘ered by affiliated organizations
which are supported by contributions of local congregations and services provided within
the structure of the local congregations itself. The variations between different
denominations, including fiee standing congregations, mean that the amount of support
which can be accounted for directly by the local congregation will vary considerable. One
result is that local churches in denominations such as the United Methodist Church, in
which much of the funding provided by local congregations is administered by the
denominational structure, will under-report the work they are supporting, even potentially
in their own local communities.

The United Methodist Church

The United Methodist Church (UMC) is one of the large mainline Protestant
denominations in the United States, and like many, has been in decline for the past three
to four decades (Hoge and Roozen, 1979; Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle, 1996; Roof and
McKinney, 1987). As of 1996 there were 8,611,902 members located in 36,771

organized churches, a mean of 234 persons per congregation (General Board of Global

104
Ministries, 1997). However, the mean is skewed by the larger churches, as the majority of
congregations are relatively small. There are 1200 congregations over 1,000, over half of
which have memberships between 1,000 and 1,500:
o 81 churches have memberships over 3,000
o 181 churches have memberships of 2,000- 2,999
o 248 have memberships of 1,500 - 1,999
o 690 have memberships of 1,000 - 1,499 (Gilbert, 1997).

In addition, as the second largest Protestant denomination in the United States, it
is arguably the most representative Protestant denomination geographically. Until the
fairly recent decline of rural congregations, the United Methodist Church reportedly had at
least one church in every county in the US. (Wood and Bloch, 1995). The denomination
has membership across economic lines, although certainly the largest share of members is
middle class (Roof and McKinney, 1987).

The UMC is a structured, hierarchical denomination, well-earning the name
Methodist. From the local church level up, the next level of structure is the district, within
which several dozen churches are under the oversight of a district superintendent.

Districts are clustered into an annual conference, which has a bishop overseeing its
operations, pastoral appointments, etc. Bishops do not have absolute power, although
they do have authority vested by the denomination’s polity making body to enforce and
adjudicate some matters. There are six districts in the West Michigan Conference,

probably an average number.

105

An annual conference is a legislating entity, with one meeting of the whole each
year in which one voting lay person from each local congregation and all clergy of the
conference make decisions regarding polity and, more generally, regarding program
priorities for the year. For example, two program (mission) priorities of the West
Michigan Conference are support for alleviation of hunger, with a 1998 goal of raising $14
per member for hunger projects, and with the Haiti Methodist church designated as a
partner conference, a 1997 goal of raising $100,000 toward the lunches of the children in
Methodist run schools in Haiti. All legislative decisionsof the Annual Conferences are
subject to the polity developed by the General Conference, a quadrennial meeting of
representatives fi'om all the United Methodist conferences.

The denomination is comprised of 72 annual conferences which are the charges of
50 elected bishops. Thus each conference has a mean membership of 119,600 in 510 local
churches. The range in size of annual conferences is from approximately 4,000 in Alaska
and 17,800 in New Hampshire to 350,000 and 343,500 in Virginia and Florida
respectively.

The West Michigan annual conference of the UMC, the focus of this study, has a
membership of 78,530 in 441 local congregations which range in size from 11 to 1536
(West Michigan Annual Conference, 1996). Only four local churches have membership of
1,000 - 1,999 with another 12 in the 600 - 999 range (Alsgaard, 1997), while over 300 are
under 200 members (West Michigan Annual Conference, 1996).

The ethnic/racial composition of the denomination reflects in many ways

the denomination’s history of Northern European influence and the long-term effects of

106
segregation: Afiican Americans compose only 3.7% of the denomination’s membership,
well below their proportion of the general population. The West Michigan conference
follows the pattern of under-representation in terms of numbers for various populations.
Specifically, there is only one congregation in the conference which is predominately
Afiican-American, with a conference total of 375 African Americans/Black( .5 %), 132
Hispanics ( .16%), 270 Asian Americans (.34 %), 13 Pacific Islanders. There are 267
Native Americans ( .16 %) with seven churches identified as predominately Native
American. Korean and Vietnamese congregations are also being supported as developing
congregations in urban areas. This demographic skew has considerable implications for
the findings, implications which will be discussed as one of the limitations of this study.
However, this obvious lack of diversity within the United Methodist Church is also
reflective of other mainline denominations, and undoubtedly has implications for the ways
in which churches in this denomination as well as demographically similar mainline
denominations can provide effective social ministries and social capital development
across diverse communities. This will also be discussed further in the dissertation.

The structure of this denomination is quite important with respect to two aspects
of this study. First, the structure of an organization is itself a source of social capital for
members and participants (Coleman, 1990, 304). It is a resource to persons who are
seeking to volunteer, with considerable consulting capacity, in the case of the United
Methodist Church and many other mainline denominations. There are often
denominationally sponsored events which provide networking opportunities as well as the

needed social support which encourages volunteers to continue with their efforts. The

107

Holy Boldness Convocation, in San Francisco in November, 1997, is an example of this
type of social capital development. The Convocation is being held to encourage urban
ministries initiatives, and is being co-sponsored by Glide UMC of San Francisco, a 6,400
church whose extensive social ministries make it the San Francisco’s largest provider of
social services (Miller, 1997). Approximately 1,500 persons are expected to attend.
These types of events will provide participants with extensive personal social capital
opportunities in addition to teaching them how to develop social capital opportunities
within their local urban churches.

Another denominational event provides participants with a similar environment.
Every four years there is a gathering of the United Methodist Women which draws
thousands of women to discuss the role of their local women’s groups in social ministry as
well as providing support and networking opportunities for them to engage with others
who are doing similar work in their communities. Within both of these setting, the use of
technology will be part of the event itself and will be among the optional workshops which
are available to participants. Thus, as these examples illustrate, a strong denominational
organizational hierarchy, if it is creative, can be a venue for social capital development
through face-to-face interactions, development of a symbolic community, both literally and
virtually, and teaching of skills which will enhance the ability of church members to serve
as volunteers who add social capital to their own communities. In addition, the structure,
by offering education and materials regarding designated ministries such as hunger and
lunches for Haiti school children, is able to focus efforts and likely increase the amount of

contributions which are made for those initiatives. To state the obvious, this focusing of

108
effort then excludes other potential initiatives, including those which may be the priority of
the government.

The other way in which social structure is relevant to this study is that the United
Methodist Church, as a denomination, by virtue of its extensive mission efforts, has a
number of programs at the denominational level. Many of these are human services,
which are funded by local churches through denominational firnds transferred from the
local congregations through apportionments or given directly to the individual projects by
the local churches. The United Methodist Church as a denomination is engaged in a
global effort to provide services for persons in need, such as education, hunger
amelioration, emergency (disaster) services, and health.

These may be at the general denominational level, such as the effort to raise $25
million for the construction from the ground up of a new university in Afiica, to
conference initiatives such as a recent capital campaign which aimed to raise $5 million for
the renovation and maintenance of church run summer camps in the West Michigan
Conference. Many of these efforts have as a by-product the building of social capital, but
they also create competition for the leadership, time, and money of church members who
might otherwise be expending those resources on local projects. This is not to suggest
that one efl’ort should be viewed more favorably than another, but rather to point out that
the denomination is already actively engaged in a variety of social ministries through the
denominational structures and that the resources of local church members are divided, as
is true for many of the mainline Protestant denominations. Thus, it is very probably a

fallacy to expect that the denominations have large untapped resources available for new

109

programs, even thought theoretically those resources are available (Steinberg, 1996).

Volunteers and the Nonprofit Sector

Volunteers are an integral part of the nonprofit sector and must be considered
within any discussion which relates to the capacity of the nonprofit sector to human
services. In addition, there appears to be a relationship between religious participation and
the amount of volunteering (Hodgkinson, et al., 1996b; Hoge, 1994), and there are
denominational differences in levels of volunteering (Hoge and Yang, 1994). Hodgkinson,
et al. (1996b) state that 93 million Americans, or almost 49% of the adults volunteered an
average of 4.2 hours per week in 1995. Three-quarters of the time was spent in formal
volunteering, with the remainder spent assisting friends and neighbors informally. This
represents the equivalent of 9.23 million full-time employees, certainly not an insignificant
amount of time in unpaid help! At least a quarter of those reporting volunteer activity are
doing so in a religious organization. Further, those who report attending religious services
weekly give more and volunteer more than others (Hodgkinson, et al., 1996b).

However, Hodgkinson, et al. (1996b) also point out that this represents a decrease
in volunteering since 1989 and interpret the decline as being a firnction of fear that the
economy might worsen. That is, those who were worried about their money in the future
were less likely to volunteer, and also likely to contribute a smaller share of their
household income to nonprofits. While overall the economy was not worsening, radical
changes in the structure of the large corporations, including mergers and downsizing,

reduced both job security and often compensation packages for tens of thousands of

110

employees. While Hodgkinson, et a1. ( 1996b) are not able to clearly pin causal
relationships between the economy and volunteering, the underlying instability of
individual job status may in fact contribute to reluctance or inability to volunteer. In
addition, it may be that people’s perception that they themselves are in need may influence
their decisions to withhold their time from others in some cases.

Tomlinson and Wilson (1997), in a study of volunteering in Michigan, report that
41% of those surveyed (N =97 5) volunteered . In this study, persons who were affiliated
with either the Catholic church or a Protestant church volunteered considerably more
(49% and 41% respectively) than those who did not report religious amliation (23%).
This is consistent with the findings measured by others (I-Iodgkinsona., et al., 1996) which
suggest that persons who are religiously affiliated tend to volunteer more than those who
are not. There are also cultural norms which support volunteering. For example, Hall-
Russell and Kasberg (1997) reported on the volunteering and other forms of philanthropy
in the Afiican-American community in the Midwest and pointed to strong networks of
informal support offered by African-Americans, often offered to persons who are from

outside their immediate social community (i.e. non-African Americans).

Religious Congregations: Role Within the Nonprofit Sector

Understanding of the nonprofit sector can arguably be addressed at three levels:
economic impact, organizational firnctioning and type, and place of the individuals with
respect to specific parts of the sector. Economic impact relates to the size of the sector in

employment, expenditures, funding sources, income transfer and welfare of society. It

ll 1
may also include taxation issues, ranging from impact of individual'taxation on
contributions to nonprofits to loss of taxable property and income. Finally, economic
impact analyzes the tensions between nonprofit and for profit activities, including
comparative questions of efficiency and effectiveness of the two sectors. Issues of equity
are also implicit, although perhaps they receive less attention. The second level
organizational functioning and type relates to defining who benefits from the particular
organization in question and what the structure of the organization is. Finally, the place of
the individual is concerned with the extent of involvement of the individual in supporting
particular types of services or organizations or the sector in general, with financial
contributions, volunteering, and in some cases attendance.

While there has been some research which defines the role of nonprofits on the
economy, social structure, and welfare of citizens, it has been sparse. Much of it has
sought to define the place of religious institutions, along with their affiliated service
providing arms, such as Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, Lutheran Social Services and
many others, in meeting the needs in U. S. communities. The diversity of organizational
types supported by religious institutions has already been partially discussed, but is
considerable: colleges, hospitals, social service agencies, child welfare agencies, economic
development programs, youth clubs, arts and cultural centers, and housing initiatives, to
name a few. These religiously affiliated agencies and programs have been the primary
focus of research, with considerably less on the human service work and role of religious
congregations and denominations.

It seems probable that there is a combination of factors influencing this trend in

l 12
research. First, the reticence of researchers to explore religious organizations is likely
rooted in concerns about academic careers based on the apparent lack of interest and
respect of peers for the study of this areas. Another probable reason has to do with the
reticence of religious organizations to be studied. Informal discussion of nonprofit
researchers concerning study of churches often includes frustration about the difficulty in
gaining the trust and cooperation of local congregations when they are needed as the
sources of data. Finally, data which are available often do not lend themselves to
separated analysis of religious congregations and their amliated organizations, even for
those researchers who have an interest in so doing. Human service providing agencies
which are separately incorporated are required to report to the IRS, hence making data
concerning these organizations more accessible. However, it is generally impossible to
ascertain the extent of religious affiliation through general reports of organizations. These
sorts of difliculties are reflected in studies such as The State of Nonprofit Michigaa 1994
which documents and analyzes many aspects of the nonprofit sector in Michigan, but does
not include religious congregations in the analysis (Wilson, 1995). The apparent reason is
that the source of the data used did not include these organizations.

Perhaps as a result of the paucity of objective information regarding the work of
religious congregations, common perceptions of religious institutions are frequently based
on what any given person thinks they ought to be, ideas which are often virtual myths, or
are generalizations based on individual experiences a person has had within a church or
religious organization. These perceptions range from expectations of great charity by

churches to considerable cynicism about the willingness of churches to have any

113
meaningful impact on those in need. It seems more reasonable to approach the
relationship between members and their religious organizations — their reasons for
attending and participating, their expectations about personal gain from participation, their
motivations and willingness to give contributions and to volunteer for their congregations
and to assist others - as at best complex and difficult to understand. Yet, if religious
congregations are to make any contribution to the welfare of the greater community and if
social workers, politicians, and others making decisions about the how to achieve
improved social welfare in society are to be efi"ective in this new era of devolution, it is
essential that the role and capacity of religious congregations be understood.

Jeff Biddle (1992) has suggested that religious congregations are both mutual
benefit organizations and philanthropic organizations, estimating that about 70 percent of
the expenditures support mutual benefit activities. It is, therefore, reasonable to View
most religious organizations as primarily concerned with the production of “club
services”, in the form of worship, educational programs, social and personal growth
opportunities for members, and secondarily concerned with provision of philanthropic
activities, which includes social service/basic assistance programs. Wolpert (1993)
distinguishes the type of services ofl‘ered by nonprofits somewhat differently, describing
amenity services and equity based services. Amenities refer to services such as the arts
and culture, health, and education. Equity services are more related to transfer of goods
and redistribution of income from the wealthier to the poor. Relating this back to Biddle’s
characterization above, churches appear to provide a heavy proportion of amenity or club

services, with a more limited amount of equity services or philanthropic activities.

1 14
Assuming this to be true, it can be hypothesized that churches and denominations which
are losing membership and thus their base for financial support may be less able or less
motivated to engage in philanthropic activities. Simply put, churches which are struggling
for members are more likely to make club benefits, or maintaining their own church
activities and buildings a priority over benevolence giving and volunteering. This point
will be further addressed in a later section of this paper. Further, although as b, et al.
(1996) point out over one quarter of all those reporting volunteer activity do so in
religious organizations, the type of work done by the volunteers may be oriented strictly to
programs within the organization itself, with members deriving all the benefits.
Nonetheless, this still leaves open the possibility that they might be able to offer their

buildings for use by other groups or work cooperatively in other ways.

Individual Charitable Contributions in the United States

Studies by a variety of persons have sought to document trends in charitable giving
in the United States across time, between economic classes, between persons who are
religiously affiliated and those who are not, and within that last group, between persons of
difl‘erent denominational afliliations. The findings are difficult to compare because of
differences in methodology and differences in measurement tools. However, data from all
sources seem to indicate that although Americans continue to strongly support voluntary
organizations, particularly religious organizations, in the U. S. with time and money, there
is a decline in the overall propensity to make charitable contributions (Hodgkinson, et al.,

1996; Hoge, Zech, McNamara, and Donahue, 1996). From 1921 to the 1990’s there was

115

a mean increase in income of 250%, from $4,000 to $14,000 in 1967 constant dollars.
However, as an example, in one group of denominations representing almost 30 percent of
the Protestant churches, contributions as a percentage of income have dropped from 3.0%
in the late 1950’sto 2.5%, in the early 1990’s (Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle, 1996).

Hodgkinson, et al. (1996b) describe a picture which is not encouraging with
respect to the trends in household charitable contributions to various concerns across the
nonprofit sector. The percentage of adults reporting contributions to charitable
organizations dropped from 81 in 1987 to 70 in 1991. Further, average wages have
declined in constant dollars since the 1970’s, with gains only for the wealthiest 20 percent
of the population, particularly the upper one percent (Wolff, 1995). Combining this
information with that regarding the overall increase in mean income since the 1950’s, it is
likely that all persons were improving up until the 1970’s but that overall, it is the wealthy
who have increased their income consistently. This shift from an overall affluence to
improvement primarily for those who are wealthier can be seen in the data which show
that by the mid-1990’s, the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest 20% of the
population was the widest it had been since sometime before 1947 (Rosen, 1995, 153). It
seems logical that people who have less than before might have less ability to help others.
However, as was already pointed out, the wealthiest, who have apparently gotten more,
are giving less than previously.

Wolpert (1993) points to other trends which suggest an even more grim picture for
those who are poorest in the US, and thus arguably most in need of assistance fiom

other. Wopert analyzed giving trends by region, using variables such as political leanings,

116
region, and type of recipient nonprofits for comparison. One of Wolpert’s troubling, but
not so surprising, findings is that while there are locales where people tend to be more
generous, their generosity is considerably more targeted to amenity services than to
equity-based social services. What is somewhat surprising is that amenity support tends to
be increasing in politically and culturally liberal regions where per capita income is
increasing. Thus, in the areas where conventional wisdom would predict more donations
to equity-based programs, increased capacity to give is encouraging contributions to
programs from which the donors themselves can benefit. The analysis by Hodgkinson, et
al. (1996a) support Wolpert’s claims that there is a shift toward amenity services. They
point to a decrease in funding to religious organizations (although some of those services
are also amenity services) from 52 to 45 percent between 1985 and 1994. Contributions
to health and human services also declined slightly, while volunteering and giving to arts
and cultural organizations increased substantially between 1987 and 1993 (Hodgkinson, et
al., 1996b). Overall, per capita contributions edged up between 1964 and 1993, from
approximately $210 to $290 in 1987 constant dollars.

An additional factor is that contributions as a share of funding for operations of
nonprofits, including those which are religiously affiliated, had dropped fiom over half of
total budget in the 1960’s to about a quarter by the early 1990’s. Generally this has been
the result of increased reliance by the non-profits on governmental funding. Thus,
offsetting government cuts would require a considerable increase in levels of private
contributions, increases which have not been previously seen. In fact, as noted, there has

been a leveling of contributions to nonprofits from 1986 through 1993, likely a result in

l 17

part of tax changes accompanying the funding cuts of the 1980’s (Hodgkinson, et al.,
1996b). There are a variety of reasons to believe that tax cuts, regardless of their
concurrence with social service funding cuts, will only result in small proportionate
increases in charitable contributions, even though on the surface there is great capacity for
individuals to increase their charitable contributions. 9

The above findings suggest doubts about the willingness of the general population
to support new services (albeit ones which have been transferred fiom the government) in
their communities. One might logically hope, given that contributions to churches are
consistently stronger than contributions to the remaining nonprofits (Hodgkinson, et al.,
1996a), that persons affiliated with religious congregations might be somewhat more
willing to increase contributions. However, Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) are not
encouraging with respect to that hope, as their study suggests church giving in general is
following a trend similar to that of the general population. Respondents in their survey of
denominational and local leaders in a variety of Christian churches identified shifts in the
mentality of their constituencies, as churches members Viewed giving as fee-for-service,
approaching their church membership with a consumer mentality. This is reflected, for
example, in the fact that the vast majority of both pastors and regional officials (91% and
94% respectively) viewed parishioners as demanding a higher level of comfort from their

congregations than previous generations had (39). The implications for giving to services

 

9 Richard Steinberg (1996) offers an excellent summary and discussion of economic theory and research
concerning predicted behavior of individuals In response to various changes in social service funding and
taxation in “Can individual donations replace cutbacks in federal social-welfare spending? In Burlingame,

D. F. ,Diaz, W. A, Ilchman, W. F. and Associates. Gamcig for Change? The Nomfit World in the Age
of Devolution. Indianapolis: Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.

118
for those in need, particularly the poor, are that there will be a limited willingness to
increase giving.

One side note which is troubling is that since 1993 there has been a shift in who
had highest giving as a proportion of income. Up to 1993, persons with incomes under
$10,000 consistently gave the largest contributions, as a percentage of their income,
compared to other income groups (Hodgkinson, et al., 1996b). There are two aspects of
this which are of concern. The first is that the change seems to confirm that that group is
suffering economically, reducing its ability to give. The other troubling possibility is that
the upper income persons have been less willing than the very poor to share their wealth to
assist those most in need. While there is an implicit value judgment in stating that this
trend is troubling, it is difficult to argue that persons with incomes below $10,000 are
giving fiom a surplus of their income. Rather, it is clear they are giving from what they
need themselves, perhaps because they perceived other as being even worse off than
themselves. On the other hand, shifts in where contributions are going seem to suggest
that the wealthy are giving to support amenities which likely benefit them directly, such as
Public Radio/TV. and arts/cultural programs which have suffered funding cuts along with
human services (Wolpert, 1993).

Wolpert (1993) makes one more point which deserves mention. Most of the
efforts to decentralize services have come from the politically conservative, who have
suggested with confidence that services would be funded and provided more efficiently at
the local level with support from the communities. However, regional differences, some

described above, suggest that those regions where contributions increased were also more

119
liberal than others. Wolpert implies that political arguments for the decentralization were
in some ways disingenuous. They reflect perhaps not so much a philosophy that people
should be served locally as a belief that local communities should be able to fund their
preferences for services, even if those preferences are for reduced services. That is,
conservative politicians perceive that their constituencies have, and perhaps even
themselves have, a preference to reduce funding for services rather than a preference to
shift responsibility to the local level where it can be administered more effectively. In fact,
even Arianna Huflington (1997), a conservative, has expressed concern regarding whether
fellow conservatives are actually concerned about the welfare of the poor, pointing to
some specific incidents in which they have dismissed or ridiculed efforts to help the needy
through the types of efforts they purport to support, such as the 1997 presidents’
volunteerism summit which sought to increase voluntary action. The implications of this
with respect to churches is unclear, except that churches are comprised of people from the
community and also tend to be somewhat homogenous in membership. This raises
questions about whether the task of addressing particular problems is more likely to be
taken on by only particular churches, such as churches composed of more liberal persons.
Data are not clear on this issue, but it is one which merits investigation.

While not included directly in any of the literature reviewed for this paper, the role
of church participation in encouraging contributions to the remainder of the nonprofit
sector merits additional research as well. Much material is available describing how to
induce people to part with their money for any number of purposes deemed important by

others. Nonprofit organizations use methods ranging from personal contacts to mail

120
solicitations with enclosed gifts (how many address labels does one household really
need?) to the seemingly endless telemarketing solicitations now in vogue. Nonprofit
organizations often utilize professional fund raising professionals to assist their efi‘orts.
With such effort on the part on organizations other than churches, one might anticipate
they would receive the bulk of contributions. Yet statistics show that religious
organizations receive funding from over half of all people making charitable contributing,
and that over 60 percent of all contributions made go to religious institutions. In part this
is a function of the number of people who belong to churches. However, contributing a
portion of one’s income or sharing part of one’s wealth with others, particularly with
those who have less, is also a part of the value system of most religions. The standard in
Christian churches is that a tithe, or one tenth of one’s income, should be given away.
While it is obvious, given the per capita statistics on giving (Hodgkinson, et al., 1996b)
that even in churches this is not the average, it does seem that churches create a social
norm regarding contributions which is toward greater equity than that prevalent in the
general culture. Thus, it seems likely that the proportion of people participating in
churches impacts the amount of money being contributed across all of society. However,
there are considerable denominational difl‘erences between individual contributions as a
percentage of income and as per capita averages (Hoge, Zech, McNamara, and Donahue,
1996). The most clearly documented differences are between the Roman Catholic church
and Protestant denominations as a group, but there are differences between Protestant
denominations as well (Hoge, Zech, McNamara, and Donahue, 1996; Zaleski and Zech,

1994). One must question whether these differences point to differentials in the ability

121
and willingness of different Christian denominations to step into the gaps in human
services being created by devolution and reductions in governmental funding for human
services. There has been a limited amount of work on contributions of Jewish persons,
either as individuals or through synagogues, and Virtually none on persons or
organizations of other faiths. Given the difficulties of documenting and understanding the
Christian experience, these other faiths will be left to other researchers. However, they
are important to at least acknowledge as the variations in religious priorities of different

faiths and denominations will influence the work which they are willing to undertake.

Churches: Activities Outside Traditional Religious Functions

In spite of their primary function of providing religious services, religious
congregations in the United States have been and continue to be actively involved in a
number of non-religious activities. There are two general ways in which they engage in
these activities, either by doing the activities themselves or by supporting others in their
efl‘orts to provide needed services to others. Arnmerrnan (1996) describes religious
congregations as being a key source in the voluntary sector of “the material infrastructure
of gymnasiums and kitchens and telephones and vans (which are) a critical part of the
social capital contributed to society (8).” She firrther reflects that US. culture views
helping as a religious virtue and expects helping activities from religious organizations. In
a study conducted with approximately 300 congregations in nine cities, 88% of

congregational members surveyed felt that helping the needy is very important or essential

122
to Christian life, and 92% believed that such service is very important or essential to the
ministry of their congregation.

It is clear that churches and their afliliated organizations are active in addressing
many of the problems which exist in society, including problems having to do with equity
or redistribution of wealth, individual crises, and community social problems. For
example, Wineburg (1994) reports having read over 300 news accounts from 1982
through 1992 of religious involvement in social services. One of the areas in which the
Christian churches of the United States have been very involved is in services to children,
having been the primary provider of such services until the Social Security Act of 1935
made the government the major player (Richmond Garland, 1994). The United Methodist
Church’s Women’s Division (part of the Board of Global Ministries) developed the United
Methodist Women’s Campaign for Children in an effort to encourage women in local
churches to work to improve the lives of children in their local communities. 10

Within this section two areas related to the activities are examined. One is the
attitudes of churches about helping and about potential changes in the amount of work
they might do. The other is a description of both the scope of and a sample of churches’
activities, either at the local or denominational level, which address community problems.
Again, this latter area may include either church-sponsored activities or support for
activities ofi‘ered by others.

Nationally, there has been some documentation specifically about faith-based social

services such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Social Services, and Lutheran Social

123
Services. However consistent information regarding what role churches play in meeting
the various human service needs of community persons is sparse or fugitive. In some
cases, such as The United Methodist Church, some types of information are gathered by
denominational agencies. However, this information is often not readily available to other
service providers, researchers and policy planners.

The most comprehensive survey available at present is that of the Independent
Sector (Hodgkinson, et al., 1992). 727 religious congregations were surveyed.
Congregations provided information regarding membership, program activities,
employees, volunteers, and revenues and expenditures. These congregations estimated
that the hours worked by volunteers and paid staff beyond the religious activities of the
church were distributed as follows: education (14 percent), human services (8 percent),
health (8 percent), arts and culture (2 percent), public and societal benefits, environment
and international activities (1 percent each) and other activities (4 percent). Thus, 40
percent of all time worked in churches is estimated to go to these other activities.

Of the respondents, 92 percent of all congregations were involved in human
services and welfare, with nearly 75 percent reporting youth programs. Ninety percent
reported at least one program in health. Other areas reported by at least 50 percent of the
congregations were international (significantly overseas relief), programs for public or
societal benefit, pro-life or pro-choice activities, and arts and culture. However, it is not
indicated to what extent the programs in these congregations serve persons outside the

membership of their own congregation (Hodgkinson, et al.,l992).

 

10 United Methodist Women’s Campaign for Children. The Women’s Division, General Board of Global

124

One of the predictors of the number of programs in which a congregation would
be involved is the size of a congregation, with larger congregations doing more
(Hodgkinson, et al., 1992). This finding is also true with respect to direct service
provision for specific populations, such as persons with mental retardation (Nelson, 1983).

Many churches do have extensive programs to assist their own members. By far
the most extensive social service network offered for members of any denominations is
that of the Mormon church. These services are funded by the considerable contributions
which are expected of all members (Carlson, 1992). Other congregations have less formal
or extensive structures for responding to needs of members, but do so regularly. It is
common practice, for example, to have a network of families in a congregation who
supply meals to persons who have experienced a death or who are suffering some familial
crisis. Loss of housing due to fire or other concrete needs of members may be met with an
organized effort to secure the needed funds or items from other members. Harris (1994)
describes both mutual aid in churches and informal care ofl‘ered through an organized
fiamework as means for addressing needs of members.

This distinction between serving one’s own congregation versus serving the larger
community is critical in evaluating the potential and willingness of churches to step into
the gaps being created by shifts in services since the 1980’s, as many persons in need may
have little or no affiliation with religious congregations. Further, as Wolpert (1993) points
out, the social and wealth segregation which has occurred in the United States leaves

communities, and hence their community-based congregations, with unequal resources.

 

Ministries, The United Methodist Church, 475 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10115-0050.

125
The religious congregations in less affluent communities, mirroring their communities, will
have fewer resources with which to meet greater need. An indicator of the degree to
which congregations are running programs which benefit persons outside their
congregations is the presence of separately incorporated programs. The area in which the
most congregations had separately incorporated programs was education (4.6 pecent),
with arts and culture second (3 .3 percent). These are, as Wolpert describes them, amenity
services which may or may not benefit the community at large. Human services/welfare
programs were only separately incorporated in 1.2 percent of the congregations.
Interestingly, Olsen, et al. (1988) in their study of inner city churches in Chicago found
that if the membership of the church was either all community or all non-community, as
opposed to a mixture, the number of programs sponsored declined.

Of particular interest in this study is the response of local congregations to the
reduction in social services associated with retrenchment. Wineburg (1996) described at
length the extent of religious congregational involvement in support for local social service
organizations. One of the most telling statistics he offered was the increased support for
the Greensboro Urban Ministry, an interfaith agency, allowing an expansion fi'om 6 staff at
the beginning of the Reagan administration to a stafl‘ of 47 and a 1.3 million dollar budget
in the mid-1990’s.

Other studies have examined the particular activities of local churches in particular
areas. Thomas, Quinn, Billingsley, and Calswell (1994) analyzed Black churches’
involvement in the provision of social and health services in communities. The study

produced evidence of both participation in volunteer run programs addressing basic human

126

needs, counseling and education (67%) as well as substantial collaboration with secular
providers (71%). In this study, churches fi'om the Methodist tradition tended to be more
involved in outreach when compared to Baptist and Pentecostal churches, illustrating the
presence of difl’erences between denominations. Not surprisingly, churches which owned
their own buildings were much more likely to be involved in outreach efforts. Mares
(1994) describes housing development efforts of a coalition of churches in Los Angeles.

Olsen, et al. (1988) looked at the feasibility of involving churches in collaboration
with health providers. They believed that the communities where churches might play the
most important role in this area were the inner city areas where the poorest persons tend
to live and where preventive health care is most lacking. Their rationale was that the
churches are key social institutions which people trust more than they do other
institutions. This description is a variation on Putnam’s (1995a) observations about
people deveIOping trust as a result of having joined organizations. That is, people develop
trust in the organizations to which they belong, and thus are more willing to seek
assistance in those places. In addition to the evaluating the possibility of collaborating
with a health care provider, the churches identified their existing programs. Nearly half
had food pantries and a third provided a clothing bank for persons in the community. Size
of the congregation was a factor in the number of programs which were offered, with
larger churches (over 500 members) offering more programs. As for program expansion,
many indicated a willingness to do more in the area of health advocacy and collaboration.

One problem area which churches are tackling is drug abuse. Difl‘erent approaches

are being taken, illustrating how the churches can be flexible in addressing community

127
problems. Several of these were described in Christianity Today (Lawton, 1991), a
national publication with a readership that would likely draw ideas for use in their own
congregations. In Washington, DC, the Council of Bishops for the United Methodist
Church assigned a bishop to work with local churches on development of a strategy to
fight drug abuse which involved intensive outreach to both young people and adults.
Lawton (1991) describes seven other programs from across denominations which are
taking a variety of approaches to the problem of substance abuse. Vinankulu (1990) also
describes efforts underway in churches and denominations to address the substance abuse
and crime related to drug trafl'rcking in communities. Strategies range from substance
abuse counseling to buying the houses being used by drug dealers. There are also limited
examples, such as the Bridging the Gap program which is based in the School of Allied
Health at the University of Texas, which seek to develop working relationships between
other helping professions and religious communities (Turner, 1995). This substance abuse
educational project was developed when a survey revealed that a community of 62,000 in
Texas had no programs based in any church for substance abusing persons and their
families. In another health related collaboration, a hospital in the Hollywood, California
area worked to develop a collaboration with other churches in providing preventive
medicine and health screenings which were particularly targeted at the poor (Turner,
1995). Churches were seen as being particularly valuable in this effort because of the
number of immigrants in the community whose cultures and languages might not have

been adequately represented in the formal health care system. Another area identified as

128
one which churches need to become involved in, and in which there have been some
efforts, is HIV/AIDS (South, 1992).

Dudley and Van Eek (1992) evaluated the attitudes of churches and their
involvement in social action and social ministries. They found that church location was
more important than size with respect to the attitudes of churches towards social justice
work, with urban churches more supportive of church involvement and social justice
work, regardless of size. They also distinguished types of church approaches to social
ministry. Sanctuary involved education and church members; civic was a mixture of
education and activism with focus on both members and the community; and activist was
an emphasis on external or community work. African-American Churches, and the
Churches of the Brethren were significantly more liberal on social issues and working for
justice than other denominations. In general, they found the mainline churches to be fairly
committed to social justice. While this is a somewhat difl‘erent issue from actual provision
of or direct support for human services, it seems likely that those committed to social
justice would also have concern for and willingness to help the poor and others in need.

One seemingly important consideratiOn with respect to the role of churches is the
place of Afiican-American and other ethnic/minority churches in working in communities.
While many studies do not distinguish churches by ethnicity, but rather by denomination, it
seems important to consider the probability that there is a different understanding,
particularly in the Afiican-American church, than there is in predominately White churches
about the church’s role in meeting needs in the community.

There is literature regarding the historical relationship of the church to the Black

129
community, the church being one of the few institutions on which Black people could
count for support and in which they were accorded the right to develop and exercise
leadership skills (Johnson, 1980). This relationship is likely to still be true in many
communities, or there may in some cases be language issues for individuals which the
church is able to mediate. Further, Afiican-American churches are extensive resources of
social welfare and social activism in their communities (Johnson, 1980). Reports, such
as that of the National Congress of Black Churches that 42 percent of their member
churches are already doing some type of anti-drug program (Lawton, 1990), certainly
suggest that the Black churches may be well ahead of the rest of the churches in their
responses to the communities they serve. Chang, Williams, Griffith, and Young (1994)
describe the Afiican-American churches in New Haven, Connecticut as including a vast
array of services, including “education, substance abuse, child abuse, parenting, domestic
violence, job training/unemployment, adoption/foster care, homeless shelters, soup
kitchens, youth programs, elderly program, long-term illness, AIDS, food and clothing
distribution, counseling, spiritual outreach, day care, recreation, social and political
activism, finances, and various volunteer programs (93)”, programs financed almost
exclusively with church funding. Harding (1992) points to findings across all churches
that they identify drugs, crime, and unemployment as major problems in their
communities, and yet fewer that five percent of those same churches had programs
addressing any of these problems. One area in which Afiican-American churches have
been active is in economic development and related programs, as evidenced by programs

such as that of First AME in Los Angeles (Whitlock, 1997) . White mainline churches,

130
often serving persons who have relatively more privilege in society, are less likely to need
those types of supports fi'om their religious congregations. A recent Michigan study
exploring questions related to the activities of religious congregations in communities with
a large concentration Black residents document extensive community program
involvement (81%), and some involvement (28%) in economic development (Jackson,
Schweitzer, Cato, and Blake, 1997).

Thus, there do appear to be interesting and productive programs being developed
and run through individual churches or in collaborative efforts which are ecumenical or
interdisciplinary. Those programs appear to tap the unique qualities of churches in
responding to community need. Yet there is also evidence that at a local church level
there is an unevenness in the extent to which churches are attempting to support or
administer programs directly. Perhaps the most appropriate role for religious
congregations, in many cases, is to serve either as a supplement to governmental services
or to offer the personal contact and caring, often resulting is social capital development,
which is not necessarily available from professional or governmental social service
providers (Nelson, 1983).

Barriers to Expansion or Implementation of Social Ministries by Churches

When considering the potential of churches to expand their social ministries, it
should be remembered that there is a difl‘erence between the potential for individual
members to increase their benevolent activities as compared to an increase in the potential
of churches or other voluntary organizations to which they belong increasing activities.

Clearly there are compelling reasons to believe that churches are committed to what might

l3 1
be called social ministries and are potentially interested in expanding their work or the
number of programs which they support. However, to put this very simply, the politicians
who seek to involve religious congregations in social ministries have not asked them
whether they either are willing or have the capacity to create programs to replace those
which have been eliminated by the government. There certainly are indicators that they
do not have the capacity. In the early 1980’s, Nelson (1983) sought to assess the ability
and willingness of Protestant denominations to engage in direct services to persons with
mental retardation, a population which is not highly stigmatized. She concluded that the
most frequent role (70% of 250 respondents) was in a social mainstrearner role, which was
basically just identifying and being friendly or supportive of persons who were identified as
MR. This is much akin to social capital development for basic emotional needs. The
limited cost and skill level required may have predisposed churches to offer this support.
Some churches were also providing direct social services. With respect to the capacity of
churches to offer services, Nelson suggested generally that the most viable role of
churches is as a secondary support, rather than as a primary provider, as the churches do
not have the financial resources or the apparent willingness to engage in extensive social
services. Of course, Nelson’s study was conducted on a specific population’s needs. One
might infer that if the willingness or capacity is found lacking for a specific
population/problem area because of limited resources, the churches certainly could not
comprehensively address the breadth of other needs which exist efi‘ectively and
comprehensively. ‘

Taken within the context of the political reality of the past 17 years, there is also a

132
logic to suggesting that local congregations might not have extensive unused resources at
this point. The churches have been targeted since the early 1980’s to provide emergency
services, social services and social capital type programs for their communities. It has
been estimated that there are 300,000 churches in the U. S. with average budgets of about
$125,000 and average membership of about 180. In order to firlly offset in dollars the
amount of funding which has been eliminated from tax based funding for human services,
on average the local churches would have to double their annual budgets, an obviously
unrealistic expectation (W ineburg, 1997). Further, if one considers that there are
substantial numbers of people who do not attend religious congregations, but that the
bulk of contributions made are made to religious congregations by attendees, there is no
likelihood that churches will receive assistance from non-attendees in funding these
additional services. This scenario leaves the church members shouldering an impossible
burden.

In addition, there are also barriers which exist. Respondents to the survey
completed by Olson et al. (1988) identified lack of volunteers, lack of funds, lack of time
to manage programs, lack of interest by the congregation, and lack of cooperation or
technical support from government agencies as primary barriers. While they specifically
were asking concerning health related programs, it is logical to think that these would
likely be barriers for other program areas as well.

With respect to funding, one area which is not raised directly in the literature, but
which might afi‘ect the ability of local congregations to directly firnd programs within their

own churches, is their relationship with and commitment to their own faith-based human

133
service organizations. The majority of mainline denominations have established separately
incorporated 501(c )(3) organizations which operate social service programs. These are
often agencies which provide services across communities in specific program areas, such
as child welfare or which provide a range of services in communities which are
impoverished. Many churches are already supporting these free-standing organizations,
whether by direct contribution, through denominational assessments or both. They may
feel they are already doing their part to provide services by supporting this professionally
administered work.

In addition, these agencies, along with other social service agencies, have relied
heavily on governmental funding since the mid-1960’s or even earlier. Cuts in firnding for
human services which began in earnest in the early 1980’s have included cuts to these
organizations, a fact which some find encouraging and others find troubling. 11 It is
assumed that as these organizations have had to absorb the loss of grants and contracts
which funded their programs, they may need additional support, including firnds, fiom the
affiliated churches. These requests would have to be met by members of local churches
through increased contributions or reduction in their own local efforts to address needs.
Given the choice between having impact through the effort of running a program
compared to contributing to an existing program, many churches would doubtless opt to
contribute to the existing program, particularly if it is seen as being in an area of greater

need and if it is viewed as being an organization doing good work.

 

11 See, for example, W. Tucker (1995). Sweet charity. The American Swatch February, 38-41. His
article is subtitled “The shocking story of nonprofits feeding at the trough at your expense”.

1 34

As implied in some of the studies above, questions of size of congregations in
combination with declining membership seems relevant when discussing the capacity of
churches to offer services. Although Dudley and Van Eck’s findings (1992) suggest that
size is not a factor in commitment specifically to social justice programs, size may be a
barrier in the implementation of actual programs. If nothing else, one could reasonably
assume that churches which have a smaller membership will also have smaller physical
plants, and thus, less flexibility in developing programs. In addition, the generally more
limited resources could mean the church would have difficulty in meeting the various
requirements which now exist for licensure of day care programs (for any of a number of
populations), building accessibility, and kitchens which serve food to the public. The
tendency of churches which are larger to engage in more programs seems to support
Dudley and Van Eck (Hodgkinson, et al., 1992; Nelson, 1983). On the other hand,
Sullivan (1985) points out that fi'ee riding may be more of a problem for larger
congregations. That is, individual members feel less individual responsibility for personally
contributing to and volunteering for the programs of the church, while still being able to
receive the benefits/ services of the church themselves because of the contributions of
others. These contradictory tendencies, if they hold true, suggest that the larger churches
may be able to increase their work more than smaller churches, but that the difference
compared to smaller churches will not be proportionate to their larger membership.

For example, The United Methodist Church nationally is a denomination of small
congregations, with handfuls of larger churches in urban areas and in small cities where

the UM. Church is one of the pillar churches. This can be seen in the West Michigan

135
Conference, which has an average of about 180 members per congregation. The declining
membership across the denomination and across the West Michigan Conference may make
it diflicult for many churches to compensate for losses in donor-members. Since 1968, the
membership of the West Michigan Conference has dropped from 105,000 to under
80,000, a loss of over 20% of its membership. It is understood within the Conference that
many churches, including large ones, are struggling to support operation and maintenance
budgets, i.e. paying pastors’ and other stafl‘ salaries, upkeep of buildings, and basic
ministries or club services of the church. The costs include the payment of
apportionments, which fund the various programs of the district, conference and general
denomination. It also appears that the membership of churches is steadily graying, with
many members in retirement and outside their communities for substantial parts of the
winter. Therefore, there have not been increases in per capita giving that have been
adequate to ofl‘set losses of donor-members.

One additional barrier has already been identified. Difl'erences, sometimes
profound ones, in the theological understandings that different churches have concerning
morality associated with various issues, may create uneven provision of services and may
influence the criteria for receiving services which create gaps in who will be served. Such
examples are substance abuse, prostitution, and gay lifestyle (vis a Vis working persons
who are HIV+ or at high risk of HIV infection). Alcoholics are viewed with varying
degrees of tolerance or condemnation, depending on the church’s theology regarding the
morality of alcohol consumption, while prostitution is fairly universally condemned. The

issue of homosexuality is so divisive within denominations, much less between them, that

136
the potential for conflict seems self-explanatory. Another example is difierences in
understandings of marriage and relationships between husband and wife which make it
difficult to address domestic violence in congregations. These differences can make it
very difficult to develop collaborations or even develop interest between congregations,
which would potentially pool resources and allow broader based community initiatives
(South, 1992; Turner, 1995). It is also, as discussed elsewhere, a barrier with respect to
people being willing to seek services and support from helping organizations, especially

from religious congregations.

Regional Differences

One factor which must be considered in attempting to understand the place and
potential of the churches, aside from theological differences which distinguish them, is the
general differences which exist across difi‘erent regions of the country. To the extent that
there are regional differences, even local congregations of specific denominations will tend
to reflect the region in which they are located. In addition, it seems probable that the
distribution of denominations which are represented in the community will reflect
theologically the general tendencies of the community. Communities which are more
conservative will tend to have more theologically conservative churches representation.
Conversely, areas which are less conservative will tend to have fewer or smaller
theologically conservatively churches.

Wolpert (1993) ranked a number of cities on per capita giving to a select set of

national funds and United Way and provided a conservative index score for the city based

137
on the voting of the U. S. representative for the area. Two Michigan cities which were
ranked were Detroit and Grand Rapids. Detroit, of course, is a major' metropolitan area
and is the largest city in Michigan. Grand Rapids, while not nearly the size of Detroit, is
the largest metropolitan area in the West Michigan Conference, where this study was
conducted. Grand Rapids, on the side of the state which is commonly viewed as a
particularly conservative area, ranked very high on the conservative indicator, sixth of 86
cities. Kent County, in which it is located, has a distribution of Catholics (33 .4%), United
Methodist (4.3%) and a combined total of Reformed Church of America (RCA) and
Christian Reformed (24.8%) (Bradley, Green, Jones, Lynn, and NcNeil, 1992). These
latter two are conservative, traditional denominations compared to the United Methodist
Church.

Detroit, Viewed as a far less conservative area, ranked as 70th of 86. As might be
expected, the distribution of Catholics (56.9%), United Methodist (1.8%) and the
CRC/Christian Reformed Churches (2%) is very different (Bradley, Green, Jones, Lynn,
and NcNeil, 1992). The Reformed Church in Michigan is concentrated on the west side of
the state, reflecting the conservative nature of the west side of the state and affecting the
types of services which are likely to be provided by the church community as a whole in
the communities where it dominates.

Not surprisingly there are discernible differences between regions of the country
with respect to participation in churches. Stump (1984, 1986) sought to analyze
participation in churches generally and across different denominations. His work was

done partly to investigate whether homogenization of regions was occurring as more

l 3 8
people moved between areas of the country. His analysis, primarily of White Protestant
and Catholic churches, found that cultural differences do exist and are reflected in
religious diversity across regions.

There are also regional difference within denominations, although this appears to
be a very limited area of study. Johnson (1980) found that the activities of Afiican-
American churches were difl‘erent in Savannah, Georgia than in Boston, a southern and a
northern region, with churches in Boston more involved in social welfare activities, while
the southern churches of Savannah were more engaged in social action. In addition,
however, the income levels of the church families in these two regions was quite different.
The Savannah churches appeared to have considerably lower income on whole, although
Johnson qualified this finding substantially, given his inability to make general comparisons
of the econonrics in the two regions. Either factor (church and regional economic status)
could influence the role of churches in both service provision and social capital
development. Differences in the political power and thus role of Black residents in the
two communities, partly a firnction of the larger size of the black community in Savannah,

may also be contributing factors.

Funding Potential of Churches

Having Stated the above, what is the, capacity of churches to raise contributions for
needed services? Nonprofits are fi'equently believed to be an alternative to government
funded programs, yet it is well-documented that private nonprofits, including those which

are religiously affiliated, were and continue to be heavily subsidized by governmental

139
firnding (Netting, 1982; Salamon, 1987). This reality was even acknowledged by the
popular media, as illustrated by a report in US News and World Report on the eve of the
1996 Republican take-over of Congress which discussed how extensively service by faith-
based organizations were firnded by governmental sources. Wineburg (1997) estimated
that, assuming there are 300,000 religious congregations in the US. which averaged 180
members and a budget of $125,000, each congregation would need on average to double
its budget. Thus, the assumption that nonprofits in general will fill the gaps left by
government cuts is a fallacy; the cuts have and will result in a reduction in human services
provided by nonprofits.

Wolpert (1993 ), who sought to document the impact of the decentralization efi‘orts
associated with the New Federalism, points out that in the nonprofit sectors of health,
education, social services, and arts and culture, the range of income fi'om charitable
contributions from an average as low as 4% for health agencies, to arts and culture at the
high end with 35%. The remainder of the income for these organizations is from fees,
dues, and government grants, as well as endowment income. Figures are not given
distinguishing those organizations which have fees or dues and endowments. It seems
likely that educational institutions, primarily of higher education, hospitals, and
arts/cultural organizations, are most likely to have both sources of income than are social
services organizations. Social service organizations tend to have a clientele without the
needed wealth to endow an organization, regardless of their aflinity for the organization.

Religious institutions, on the other hand, are supported primarily by private

contributions, with 93% of donations coming from private contributions (W eisbrod,

140
1988). In fact, it has been estimated that approximately half of all private donations in the
United States, or just over $22 billion in 1980, go to religious organizations (Rudney,
1981 cited in Rudney, 1987). The National Council of Churches of Christ in the US.
(Bedell, 1993) reported that member churches, excluding the Roman Catholic Church,
received total contributions of just over $17 billion, and firrther reported that nearly 19%
of those contributions, or $3.2 billion, was given for benevolence, suggesting that
churches are contributing to assistance for others. The per capita annual giving for all
denominations combined is $3 84.03. The United Methodist Church accounted for just
over $3 billion of the total giving, with a per capita rate of $389.53, just over that national
average.

Given the scale of reductions in firnding at the state and federal level for assistance
to the neediest persons, it is difficult to see how contributions to the nonprofit sector,
including churches, could possibly increase sufficiently to provide the level of services to
an adequate level in the private nonprofit sector. In fact, Wolpert (1993) indicates that
services, particularly those related to income transfer and equity, have not been picked up
in the local sectors at the rate they were cut at the federal level.

More specifically, comparison of the status of churches from 1973 to 1993 points
to trends in church membership and contributions which suggest that the ability of the
churches to increase support for benevolence is also probably very limited. In 1971/1972,
42 bodies reported membership of 42,204,281, with 19.3% of giving going to benevolence
(Jacquet, 1973). In 1991/1992, 36 churches reported membership of 40,358,175, with

18.75% in benevolence giving (Bedell, 1993).

141

It is difficult to draw conclusions from these data since the drop in number of
reporting bodies and reported memberships could be the result of denominations
withdrawing memberships in the National Council of Churches or simply of their failure to
report. However, there is evidence of a decline overall in the mainline denominations
since the 1960’s. The decline was clear enough by the late1970’s to prompt concern fi'om
observers (Dudley, 1979; Roozen and Carroll, 1979). Subsequently, the trends have
continued for the mainline denominations, while other nondenominational churches, often
those which are more conservative, have been showing increases in membership (Roof and
McKinney, 1987; Truehart, 1996). Many of the newest, fastest growing congregations
are the mega-churches, which may have over 10,000 attendees during a week. Trueheart
(1996) analyzes their impact in two ways. They represent over 50% of all attendees, while
the churches themselves (somewhere around 400 churches at that time) represent only
twelve percent of all Protestant congregations. In the remaining Protestant churches,
about half have under 75 congregants. Given the density of attendees which results from
these churches the resources of the participants, to the extent that they can be tapped, are
concentrated in very specific locations. Many of these churches, such as Willow Creek in
Illinois, are located in the outskirts of metro areas where there is the land available to build
the sorts of physical plants needed for such large endeavors. Parking alone for such large
crowds presents a challenge. Thus, these churches are tending to congregate people, their
resources and facilities away from the areas of poverty where the needs may be greatest.
The exception to this is the Afiican-American mega churches, such as the AME church

which houses Renaissance in the inner city of LA. (Whitlock, 1997).

142

Several sources provide information about the United Methodist Church, a fairly
typical mainline denomination and the denomination being studied here. There were
10,509,198 members reported in 1970 (Jacquet, 1973) and 8,611,902 members in 1995
(United Methodist statistics), a loss of 18% of the membership over this period of time.
Further, if one considers the membership of the UMC since the 1940’s, the decline is more
pronounced. In 1947, the Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren (which combined in
1968 to form the United Methodist Church) had a total membership of 9,135,247
(Yearbook of American Churches, 1948). Roozen and Carroll’s (1979) analysis of the
UMC’s membership between 1950 and 197 8 showed an increase through the mid-60’s
with a steady decline in membership since that time. The decline continues, accompanied
by what is commonly referred to as the “graying of the denomination”. This trend has
been visible for several decades in the mainline denominations (Dudley, 1979). It is
common knowledge in the UMC that there are many “snowbirds” in Northern churches.
The size of UMC Conferences such as Florida and Virginia, which at 343,445 and
347,741 respectively are the largest in the denomination, supports the idea that there is
considerable movement of retired UMC members to warmer climates, members who
sometimes split their time between their retirement homes and their original homes (United
Methodist statistics).

The percentage of church contributions reported as benevolence increased from
16.7% in 1970 (Jacquet, 1973) to 21.89% in 1991 (Bedell, 1993). These data can be
combined with inflation adjusted data to provide more depth to the picture. Jacquet and

Jones (1991) evaluated per-capita giving from 1961 to 1989, adjusted for inflation with

143
1967 as the bench mark. The period which seems most relevant to this study is the 1980's,
during which their analysis showed that giving edged up, increasing from $86.47 in 1980
to $107.62 in 1967 dollars. This total increase was about the same for this 10 year period
as the increase for the previous 20 year increase. However, if one looks at real dollars, the
increases fiom year to year equal about $10-$20 per capita, which is not enough to have
any real impact in service levels.

Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) discussed trends fiom 1968 to 1989, and pointed
to a decline in church member giving as a percentage of their income. Further, the study
indicated that churches were spending less on work outside the church than on work
inside the church. One conclusion was that there is untapped potential within churches
which, if tapped, could have considerable impact on the poor. This may be the case, but
there has not been much real research about what the level of that potential is, or about
whether the potential is really in funding as opposed to volunteering or making physical
resources more available. And, even if the resources are available, it is unclear that they
are available for these services. Further, church leaders themselves continue to express
concern about the ability of their churches to provide a safety net for the poor. Recently,
for example, a group of high ranking omcials fiom Michigan Protestant denominations,
the Roman Catholic church, and the Michigan Board of Rabbis called upon the state of
Michigan to provide that safety net, suggesting that religious congregations do not have

the capacity to do as much as they are being asked to do (Hughes, 1997).

144

The possibility of loss of mission

There appears to have been considerable discussion in some quarters, such as at
the political level, about whether or not religious congregations are potentially a better
source of social service funding. However, little attention has been given to the question
of impact on this sector, the churches themselves, if it substantively increases its
involvement in providing services. It seems clear that there is not likely to be a large
infusion of funding from the congregations themselves, given the limitations discussed
above. This means that securing funding for any new programs would require churches to
pursue firnding from secular sources, including the government itself.

Sherman (1995) and Hall (1997b) have both pointed out that religious__
organizations risk a loss of their mission, that of being faith-based, if they enter the ring to
rico'mpete‘withother service providing organizations for funding of new programs-“This 7
cOncern regarding mission is an old yet ongoing one. Judson (1907) in issuing his call to
i the churches to become more involved in ministering to the whole person suggested that
there needed to be limitations, lest the social concerns of the community take all the
ministers’ time away fi'om the religious concerns of the church. Donald S. Howard, then
a former dean of a school of social work, suggested to the National Council of Churches
that: “When the church diverts its limited money, personnel and attention to things that are
generally enough accepted that government funds are available for them, will it have

suficient funds for its unique responsibility? I doubt it ”(1959). If congregations

recognize this as a legitimate concern, they may be influenced about how to proceed with

145
their development of additional services. One possible outcome is to limit their
involvement with external firnding sources, particularly government.
Summary of issues

Thus, there are several key points which are relevant to this study. First, the work
of religious congregations has been largely ignored by social workers and much neglected
by researchers of the non-profit sector. With the notable exception of the Hodgkinson, et
al. (1992) study, there have not been broad-based studies documenting the social welfare
work of congregations. The remaining studies which have been completed focus on
specific municipalities or the work of individual congregations. Thus, there is limited
knowledge regarding what churches within denominations or specific geographic areas are
actually doing. Research which documents the extent and type of work, along with the
populations served and the type of resources which churches have available, is needed by
social workers to assist them in their collaboration efforts with churches as a community
resource.

Second, the capacity and willingness of religious congregations to expand services
to persons within their own communities is not known, and possessing both willingness
a_nd capacity are prerequisites if they are to increase their involvement. Alone, neither is a
sufficient condition for increased involvement in providing services within their
communities. The reduction in federal funding and devolution of service provision began
over sixteen years ago, so one could reasonably speculate that many religious
congregations which had the capacity and willingness to do so have already increased the

work they are doing. In some cases, perhaps many, they are already firnctioning nearly at

146
capacity. Thus current capacity to expand may be limited. This will include building use,
as buildings of very willing congregations may be heavily used already. The extent of their
current ability to expand needs to be identified.

Third, the capacity and willingness of individuals to contribute to and volunteer for
equity services appears to be decreasing. As individuals are the source of those resources
for religious congregations, this negative trend may be reflected in congregational capacity
and willingness. This may be mediated by the moral imperatives or values of the religious
organizations. Buildings, on the other hand, are often the product of earlier generations’
contributions, and depending on the current state of their physical plants, costs of donating
building space may be quite minimal. Thus, in churches with the lowest capacity and
willingness, buildings may be the most available resource.

Fourth, a large stock of social capital is believed by many to be both a critical
resource in functioning democratic society and a possibly endangered commodity at
present, at least for some populations. Voluntary organizations are hypothesized by some
to be a key source of social capital in the U. S., with religious congregations constituting
the bulk of voluntary organizations. Thus, increasing the social ministry of religious
congregations could be important for reasons other than simply the improvement of social
condition of the poor. This type of work on the part of religious congregations has
implications for the health of the entire social structure. Gardner (1996) points to the
need to build trust as part of the development of community. He emphasizes the need to
include persons who are minorities or are otherwise outside the ranks of privilege. Thus,

analysis of the data from this survey, given the demographics of the conference, must

147
consider the implications of social capital development amongst persons who are
disenfranchized or part of stigmatized groups. The willingness of the congregations to
work with particular populations, whether defined by individual characteristics such as
sexual orientation or by area of need, such as those needing income assistance (welfare
recipients), is an important area of analysis.
Summagy of purpose

Part of the survey is exploratory, as it seeks to document what United

Methodist churches are already doing in their communities. This includes both changes
they have seen in needs in their communities and changes they have made in response to
those needs. This study will attempt to document the willingness/capacity of local
congregations to address human need in their communities.

In addition, it seeks to understand the potential of local congregations in the
development of social capital within their communities. Social capital, as previously
discussed, is still an under-theorized and under-researched concept. However, most
authors have operationalized the concept as the social ties and networks which are
developed between people. Further, the assumption has been that participation in and
especially membership in voluntary associations is one of the means by which people
develop social capital. Thus, for the purposes of this study, the primary measure of social
capital development potential will be the existence of programs at churches which are
participatory, with the assumption that social capital will be available to participants. This
is true for those who volunteer and for those who are active participants. The study will

distinguish between church building use and funding compared to volunteering and

148
program implementation. These latter areas are more likely to increase social capital for
church members, as well as to provide the opportunities for service recipients to

reciprocate, further expanding their social capital.

CHAPTER 3
Research Design and Methodology
Objective of the study
There are many questions about what ability churches have to increase their work
in non-religious services for their communities, both those which meet direct needs and
those which contribute social capital to individuals. Many people, including those
developing public policy, seem to believe that the churches are an optimal source of social
capital and concrete support within communities. This study seeks to document the
current extent of such work by the local churches of The United Methodist Church in

West Michigan and to explore its ability to do morewith respect to both those parameters.

Questions

With that objective in mind, the following questions were asked with respect to the
churches:

1. To what extent are churches engaging in activities that build social capital?

2. With what likelihood do churches report of their ability to expand social capital
development activities?

3. What characteristics of churches incline them toward greater social capital
development activities in their local communities?

4. What social capital development efforts in churches relate to youth? To what extent
are churches indicating a preference for work with children and youth?

5. Are there specific populations which are more or less likely to be ofi‘ered social capital

149

150

development opportunities? It was believed that the churches would express less
inclination to assist stigmatized populations, such as persons with AIDS, ex-prisoners,
migrants, and welfare recipients and more willingness to assist less stigmatized
populations, such as children, youth, victims of domestic violence, and senior citizens.

One additional area of inquiry, which is exploratory, is the extent to which services
are primarily for members. Provision of services to members is certainly an important
function for local religious congregations to have and such services contribute to general
welfare of the community, reducing the pressure on other service sources in the
community. However, to the extent that congregations are the primary providers of any
one type of service within the community, those who are not congregants will be
firnctionally excluded from those services offered only to members of the congregation.

This area evaluates the question of excluded populations from a difi‘erent perspective.

Design

This study was conducted using a mail survey which was sent to all the pastors
serving congregations in the West Michigan conference of the United Methodist Church.
The instrument was developed specifically for this study, utilizing the Sage Survey Kit for
guidance concerning construction of the survey (Fink, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c). (See
Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire.) The content of the instrument was
developed with input from West Michigan Conference program staff and clergy. Parts of
the instrument yield information which is similar to that of the Independent Sector in its

national survey of churches, but both the instrument itself and the method of

151

administration was different (Hodgkinson, et al., 1992). Information which was available
from that study provide background as to what the trends have been in church activity.

The purpose of the instrument was to gather data concerning the current and
future efforts of local congregations on two major dimensions. The first was actual
service delivery; the other was social capital potential, which required the use of proxy
measures. With respect to the former, the purpose was to document what services and
activities the churches are currently engaged in and where they believe their potential to
expand lies. This information gives direction to social workers about the specific areas
and ways in which churches might be able to collaborate with them.

The other dimension, social capital, was deemed important from two perspectives.
First, the possible link between social capital, voluntary associations, and adult civic
involvement, although not well empirically demonstrated, suggests the value of identifying
sources of social capital. In addition, in the face of ongoing devolution and outright cuts
in services for the poor by governmental sources, it seemed critical to assess how people
will be able to get needed assistance from other sources. Given that social capital is by
definition the presence of the personal connections which facilitate getting one’s needs
met, and given that churches are both assumed to be and to some extent shown to be
sources of social capital (Ellison and George, 1994), it seemed important to begin to
understand more about the contributions of churches to social capital in their communities.

Early in the development process, the concept for the instrument itself was
discussed with the program director of the West Michigan conference, a clergy person,

and other church officials. The director was already well acquainted with the overall

152
project, having offered input and support for the initial proposal for funding. Other
persons with responsibilities which were relevant to the project (i.e chairpersons of
relevant conference boards) were approached for input, but failed to respond and
therefore did not give input. However, additional input was secured from individual local
pastors throughout the development of the instrument. After the initial draft of the
instrument was developed, it was given to the conference program director and to several
United Methodist clergy for review and input. They made suggestions regarding
additional responses under a number of questions, but generally agreed with the structure
of the questionnaire. When the questions and survey structure had been finalized, the
survey was given to the typesetter for preparation for the computer scanning.

Once the survey was ready for printing, several non-United Methodist ministers in
the local areas piloted the survey. The questions they had with respect to the instrument
all related to information which was United Methodist specific, but otherwise, they
reported that the survey’s instructions and questions were clear.

The survey is comprised of four sections. A brief introductory section includes the
question where pastors were asked to ‘yote” for the mission project to which they wanted
their two dollar contribution sent. The second section focuses on work camps, which are
short-term volunteer projects. Analysis of current work camp activity is generally
excluded from this dissertation and will be analyzed in a separate publication. The third
section is the listing of 58 possible activities in which churches might be engaged. It asks
respondents to indicate each project in which their church is engaged by the level of

involvement: building use only, collaborative in their building, collaborative elsewhere,

153
and direct sponsor. This section also asks what types of facilities are available in the
responding church.

The fourth section is the only one expressly intended for the pastor to complete
and is designated clearly as such. This section uses a seven point Likert scale for eight
questions concerning church response to need in the past two years and their estimate of
ability to respond in the next two years. The range of response options in the scale are
from considerable decrease to considerable increase. Two additional questions are
asked concerning the church’s willingness to respond to specific populations and problem
areas.

In the remainder of the pastors’ section there are questions about the relative
health of the congregation and objective information about church demographics: size,
attendance, budget, community size, and church location. For this sample, congregation
budget, attendance, and size were reviewed to assure that figures given were completed
and consistent with those reported to the conference for the end of the specified year
(1995)

In addition to the survey instrument, three items were included in the principal
mailing. First was a letter explaining briefly the intent of the survey. Secondly, there was
a personal letter fi'om the West Michigan Council director encouraging ministers to
complete the survey. Finally, there was an envelope with enough first class postage to pay
for the return of as many surveys as that minister/church had received. Efl‘orts were made
to avoid mailing the survey during important times in the church’s liturgical year. Finally,

a reminder card was sent to all ministers whose surveys had yet to be returned by the

154
deadline. Based on pre-tests, it was estimated that on average the survey would take 15-
20 minutes to complete.
Measurement of social capital

Social capital is simple, yet somewhat elusive. As has been shown, social capital is
a broad concept whose measures have not been uniformly defined. However, the
fundamental concept offered by Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1955b) identified the
relationships between people as being the source of social capital. Thus, activities which
create new relationships between people inevitably create some quantity of social capital.
Putnam, in particular, focused on the creation of social capital as linked to people’s
participation in voluntary associations. Foley and Edwards (1997) on the other hand, are
dissatisfied with such vague definitions, which make measurement difficult or imprecise.
Yet while their critique of Putnam is useful in other ways, it does not ofl’er alternative
measures for social capital at the street level. In summary, while there are criticisms of
using proxy measures for social capital, such as participation in voluntary activities, as
being inadequate, validated alternatives are not readily available.

Social capital has been discussed as being relevant, minimally, at two levels. First,
it is important for individuals in having the potential for getting their personal needs met.
Secondly, it is important for a democratic society, if it is to function adequately, to have as
large a percentage of citizens as possible endowed with adequate social capital to work
toward collective goals, presumably ones which will strengthen civil society. Although the
link between these two benefits of social capital is not explicit in many discussions, it

seems a matter of common sense that for individuals to work toward collective goals, they

155
must first achieve their personal goals.

There are two firndamental ways to approach the measurement of social capital.
One is to attempt to measure the potential which individual people see in their personal
relationships. The other is to accept the theory that social capital is developed through
and present in voluntary associational activity and to measure the amount of that activity.
This study does the latter, as it is a methodology which allows for a difl'erent, broad
assessment of the churches in contributing social capital in their communities. Although
this caveat is expressed throughout this paper, it seems important to emphasize that this
measure does not document the presence of social capital. Rather, the development of
social capital is assumed, but it was not measured or quantified in the various activities
measured by this study.

The role of participation in voluntary associations, such as churches, has been
suggested in much of the literature as an important possible sources of social capital.
Religious congregations, the focus of this study, seem to be places where either form of
social capital might be developed and even actualized. They generally have moral
directives to meet peoples needs while also, in many cases, offering an organizational
structure which would allow for the development of collective purposes or goals. The
importance of identifying services which are directed to the community is that these are
the activities which bring non-members of the congregation into the church for
associational activities, even if it is as recipients of services.

The role of religious congregations seems critical in the development of social

capital for persons in poverty. While it can be argued that social capital is needed by all

156
persons and that social capital is required for civil collective action, market transactions
can in some cases be substituted for social capital in allowing individuals to meet their
individual or even collective goals. Thus having money reduces the need for some kinds
of social capital. Certainly, there are needs, such as the need for emotional support, which
cannot easily be met through market transactions. However, even that is potentially
purchased from a therapist. For those who lack adequate financial capital, social capital is
needed even to eat.

In summary, while there are difficulties with using proxy measures of participation
for the measurement of social capital, there are also logical arguments for inferring the
development of social capital using proxies such as the presence of voluntary activities.
Use of proxy measures does require that caution be exercised to not overstate the
findings. Social capital would be measured for this study by assessing the church
sponsored opportunities for participation in non-religious activities with voluntary
associational features. Literally, this involved counting the actual activities in which
churches reported being involved. As discussed above, building use only activities were
considered separately in the analysis, with the local church congregation as the unit of
analysis. Activities in which the churches were actually engaged in providing services
were the focus of analysis, and it was further assumed that social capital development was
potentially as high or higher for church members involved in the interaction as it was for
the actual service recipients or program participants.

Due to the multiple purposes of the survey and the anticipated limitations of

respondents’ time, the survey was not structured to permit assessment of the amount of

157
volunteering or level of interaction between the volunteers and recipients or of the actual
amount of social capital generated by any particular activity. Adding such detail would
have reduced the number of questionnaires returned. All activities in which the
congregation was directly engaged can be seen as “social capital producing” for both
recipients and church members. Activities were simply counted for each church, with each
church receiving a raw count of actual activities. Thus, the count was assumed to be a
proxy for the production of social capital, without being able to infer the level of social
capital generated.

It is impossible to say with certainty how much or what quality of social capital
was produced by each local congregation nor to measure the number of persons whose
access to social capital improved. In order to determine that, a much more complex
instrument would be needed, minimally assessing the number of participants in each
activity and the amount of interaction between them. Further, an ideal measure would
involve surveying of the individual recipients of social capital to assess the increase in their
potential to get their needs met in the firture. This depth was not pursued as it would have
made the survey impossibly long or would have required a completely different research
design. Still, it is assumed that the interactions are by definition producing social capital.
The needs of some persons are being met, and relationships are inevitably built which offer
some potential for meeting future needs. Therefore, it was decided to weight each activity
equally.

The other measure for the social capital potential of churches was their anticipated

likelihood to increase volunteering and new programs, as estimated by the pastors. The

158
remaining two questions in that set, concerning the church’s potential to increase funding
and building use, were not analyzed individually for social capital potential because these
are not believed to be resources which directly involve the congregations in social capital
producing activities, although providing a facility certainly supports its production by
others. Responses to all four questions were included in the composite score or potential
to increase resources score for each church’s overall support for social capital producing
activities for the community.

This approach to measurement of social capital, even though it seems the best
option in this study, is a proxy. Therefore, the findings must be treated with appropriate
caution. It cannot be stated with certainty that social capital increased as a result of the
activities which these churches are carrying out or that it will increase as a result of firture
increases in non-religious activities. This particular measure does not offer definitive
evidence of the presence of social capital, although its existence can be inferred with
reasonable certainty through the measures used.

Both the face validity and the content validity of the measures of current social
capital (the inventory section of the survey) are believed to be good, given that the section
counts actual activities in which the churches are engaged and by this definition capital is
produced by the activities.

Reliability problems in how churches reported their activities were identified.
These problems were visible in two ways. First, churches reported multiple involvement

levels in some activities. That is, they indicated that they were engaged in a given activity

1 59
in more than one way, such as directly sponsoring their own food bank12 and
cooperatively working with a food bank at another location. It could not be determined
whether the churches were involved in two distinct versions of the same activity or
whether the instructions were misunderstood. In the above example, the church might
actually run an onsite food pantry and independent of that, provide funding or volunteers
to a separate food bank in the community. However, it might also interact with the larger
food bank primarily for the purpose of maintaining its own food pantry, reporting that as
collaboration. It had been anticipated that the latter scenario would result in a single
answer, but when it did not, it was unclear what the multiple responses meant.

Secondly, there were some churches which appeared to have reported a level of
activity which seemed inappropriate for that particular activity. For example, 15 churches
reported that they were direct sponsors of blood drives. While they may have been the
sponsors of the blood drive in the eyes of the community, this classification was not
consistent with the instructions. In another example, 37 churches hosted 12- step
meetings, but an additional 12 churches indicated that they were involved in collaboration
or direct sponsorship of 12-Step meetings. While it is conceivable that there is some
collaboration between a church and a 12-Step meeting, the general structure of such
programs is antithetical to collaboration in the form of anything other than using a facility
owned by another. Thus, a blood drive could have been specified as a cooperative effort,

but never a directly sponsored activity, and a 12-step meeting should have been “hosting

 

12 A food bank is actually the central organization which collects bulk food and distributes it to the
smaller food pantries commonly run by churches. However, in practice, many if not most of the churches
call their activity a food bank and that is how it was listed on the survey.

160
only”. These inconsistencies raised concerns regarding the reliability of the response
categories, although not about whether churches were actually involved in activities that
they reported.

The multiple levels of involvement threatened to create an overestimation of the
actual social capital development activities of churches and the apparent rnisclassification
of the type of involvement could potentially have distorted the summary of how extensive
the churches’ involvement was in social capital producing activities. Given these twin
concerns, the analysis erred on the side of the conservative, reporting the involvement in
any given activity only once for each church, regardless of the number of levels actually
reported. This was done by creating a composite variable which was used to count the
number of total activities in which each individual church was involved. The variable was
derived by collapsing the three response categories of collaboration and direct sponsorship
into a single count, regardless of whether the church had checked one or more than one of

the three categories. The “host only” response category was not included in this variable.

Sample

The survey was mailed to all 441 churches of the West Michigan Conference of
the United Methodist Church, of which 258 were returned. Two churches had recemly
closed, and their surveys were returned by the Postal Service, giving a response rate of
open churches of 58.8%. The actual number of surveys distributed was slightly larger, as
the district superintendents got a “complimentary copy” to assure that they were aware of

the survey. In addition, due to the fact that the mailing list did not consistently reflect all

161
of the circuits, some pastors apparently received too many surveys for the number of
churches in their charge. Four of the college ministries, Wesley Foundations, received the
survey and three were returned. These do not represent churches as such, even though
they are ministries which function much like a religious congregation. Therefore, they
were excluded from this present analysis. Finally, there are several churches which are the
host sites for distinct social service-providing organizations which began as local
congregation programs and have developed into urban ministries supported by other local
United Methodist churches as well as by denominational mission structures. The pastors
of two of these churches inquired concerning how to report their activities, and they were
sent additional surveys on which to report the total activities of these other organizations
which they support. Only one of these additional surveys was returned, and it, too, is
excluded fiom this analysis. However, the church which began and housed the
organization reported the activities which it supports in this organization as it would
others. Because of cooperation from church officials and the organizational structure of
The United Methodist Church, the mailing had few errors.

Several decision parameters of this sample are particularly important:
denomination, sampling strategy, and geographic selectivity. This particular sample was
chosen for several reasons. While there was interest in being able to generalize findings to
other regions and denominations, it also seemed important to be able to isolate difl‘erences
which occurred as a result of church size, health, and location, thus requiring controls for
the other factors. Homogeneity of the denominational afiiliation of the churches in the

sample will help control for differences in responses which could have resulted from

162
variations in denominational emphases on the role of local churches with respect to
community services. Second, all the churches in a given United Methodist conference are
under the same leadership, receive the same core materials with respect to mission
priorities, and have access to the same materials and resources from the denomination for
development of any projects or programs which they attempt. This conference is located
entirely within the same state, controlling for regional differences as well. Third, it was
decided to survey the entire population rather than using a random or representative
sample as it was anticipated that a large return could be secured, reducing the variability of
a small sample which might not be representative of the overall general population. This
seemed important for this group of churches, as there is a small percentage of large
churches which seemed key to understanding the overall role of the church.

Finally, this denomination was chosen because of my affiliation with it and my
understanding of the denominational structure, as well as my personal connections to
many of the clergy. These factors were presumed to be ones which would encourage
participation by increasing the credibility of the overall study. Based on subsequent
personal comments made to me by clergy and lay persons who responded to the survey, it
appears that this did in fact contribute to the response rate. It is clear that that did not
induce cooperation in all cases. Some individuals who are well known to me have seen
me several times, acknowledged that they have yet to complete the survey while
expressing what appears to be a hope that “it is probably too late to turn it in, isn’t it. . . .”
A possible negative consequences of this “insider” status is the possibility that some

individuals might not have returned the questionnaire out of concern of being known or

163
judged, or possibly out of fears concerning confidentiality.

One of the usual challenges of conducting surveys of local church congregations is
the reticence of congregations to disclose information about their activities, particularly
about funding and budgets. The United Methodist Church’s extensive denominational
infi'astructure, known formally as the connectional system, facilitates identification of
pastors by church assignment and enhances the likelihood of response to a survey of this
sort. Churches are clustered by districts of between 40 and 80 churches, with six districts
clustered into the West Michigan Conference. Conferences fall under the leadership and
authority of an elected bishop, whose authority is far from absolute. Thus, support from
the bishop was not deemed critical for the success of the survey. There are other
designated clergy leaders as well, including superintendents for each of the six districts and
a council director who functions as a program director for the entire conference. It was
assumed that support from any of the clergy leaders would increase the response rate for
the survey. In fact, the council director voluntarily firrnished a personalized letter on
conference letterhead encouraging cooperation with the survey.

Another probable factor in favorable response rates is that all churches provide
annual reports of membership, average attendance, total budget, and a number of other
statistics which relate to the internal and external work of the church. Thus, some of the
information which was sought for this study, primarily regarding demographics, was
available from existing reports. This allows both for greater accuracy, as missing
information can be inserted. Further, it was hoped that the practice ministers have with

reporting their local churches activities would leave them inclined to complete another

164
report (i.e. the survey instrument). Finally, a monetary incentive, in the form of a $2
contribution per responding church to a United Methodist-sponsored mission project,
which was personally paid (versus being paid with grant money), was offered. While this
is clearly not adequate compensation for the time spent, it was hope that it would be
recognized as a good-faith efi‘ort. Also, it seemed obvious that the cumulative effect of a
good response to the survey would be a substantial contribution to each of the two

activities.

Notification of subjects

Several means of publicizing the survey were used. A news article in the United
Methodist weekly for Michigan, the Michigan Christin Advocala, described the research
fellowship award which firnded the study and briefly described the survey which would be
mailed. This article appeared approximately 6 weeks before the survey was actually
received by the churches. Pastors who personally spoke with me or who e-mailed to
acknowledge their receipt of the lead letter were asked to encourage any colleagues to
complete the survey, which some agreed to do. In addition, a flyer was distributed to
attendees at the Annual Conference approximately three months after the survey was
distributed, as it was clear fiom talking with ministers that there were still persons who
were willing to complete their surveys, but were uncertain whether it was too late to

complete them.

165
Tracking
The survey number was recorded for each church in order to facilitate
identification of the surveys when mailing reminders and correction of any problems with
mailings. For example, some churches had representatives call to confirm that their
surveys had arrived, and it was possible to respond to them. In addition, this number
made it possible to identify the church for purposes of confirming or completing basic

demographic information concerning respondents.

Data compilation

Returned surveys were reviewed for errors in the completion of answers provided
by the subjects. Generally corrections will be restricted to readability problems, for
example when pen rather than pencil was utilized. However accuracy of the demographic
information provided was reviewed for three variables: size of congregation, average
attendance, and annual budget based on the figures which were submitted to the Annual
Conference for the year ending December 1, 1995 (West Michigan Annual Conference,
1996). Subjects had been asked to provide this information as a convenience, as reports
fiom the congregations themselves are available from the Conference on each of these
variables. All data was compiled utilizing a computer scanner. However, missing data on
responses where it had been reviewed and corrected suggests that even with the

corrections, there were some readability problems in the scanning process.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter describes the response to the survey, including the numbers of
surveys returned and the demographics of the responding churches. In addition, it will
presents the study’s findings in the following order:

(1). To what extent are churches engaging in activities that build social capital?

(2). With what likelihood do churches report their ability to expand social capital
development activities?

(3). What characteristics of churches incline them toward greater social capital
development activities in their local communities?

(4). What social capital development efforts in churches relate to youth? To what
extent are churches indicating a preference for work with children and youth?

(5). Are there specific populations which are more or less likely to be ofl‘ered
social capital development opportunities? It was anticipated that stigmatized populations,
such as persons with AIDS, ex-prisoners, migrants, welfare recipients would be less likely
than more socially accepted populations, such as children, youth, and senior citizens to be

populations which the churches indicate they are inclined to serve more.

Who responded

There were 257 useable questionnaires returned. In the West Michigan conference

there are a few churches which are predominately or exclusively churches comprised of

166

167

ethnic or racial minority congregants. There were no questions on the survey identifying
these churches, as it is possible to manually identify them. There were respondents from
some of these local churches; however, there are so few ethnic/minority churches in the
conference that it did not seem appropriate to do a separate analysis as it would have
identified them. This decision was based on both concerns regarding confidentiality and
the inability to generalize anything meaningful about them because there are so few. An
additional mailing of the survey to United Methodist churches in the remainder of the
state, which includes the cities of Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit, has been undertaken. It is
hoped that analysis of that larger data set will allow comparison of churches based on

these characteristics.

Characteristics of the churches

Churches were asked to report their membership, average attendance and budget
as of the end of 1995, the most recent report which was available in print at the time of the
survey. They were also asked to describe their church location and congregational health
(called status in the survey) of their church. For some characteristics, the totals shown
will not correspond exactly fiom one table to the next, depending on what number of
churches completed the questions in a particular table. However, the numbers shift only
slightly with the discrepancies, and missing data do not appear numerous enough to bias
the findings.
0 Size of congregation (Average attendance) (Table 4.1). The mean membership of the

churches, not shown in Table 4.1, was 219, higher than the conference mean of

168

i

o8. 5 3.:
an 3 .33

...m : Eaazfiema Benz
:8. 6.3 m.” 36H
98. ... v. _ execs 82 as 8: 63cm
6.8 v. v. _ e355 82.8 .8 spasm
«.8 .2 2 A cause can as .9 .833
as on 3. 2 e355 82.8 an .833
on... 3 3 a census SM as .8 gum
we 2 3 a eoeba 8" as at 83am
we. 3 2. : e358 m: as E gum
op no 3 a 88.555 as on. 523
we 3 S a arena 3. as 8. gum
2m 6.2 a: 2 52.2.8.1: es 89.3
6.8 n: no. «4 cause as as a gem
SN ”.2 S: a. ceases as 8 Epsom
6.6 3 an 2 £53 an .533

v. 4. v. _ e358 oz a;

 

E E flop-um .6395

2:35:50 3.5
l

83:98. 5.56 own—22

85223 55% 32 E cesarean - 2. use.

169

approximately 180. While the sample is skewed, with a higher mean membership than that
of the general population in the conference, this is due to having received responses from
the largest churches in the conference. Although the larger churches are hence over-
reported in the sample compared to the conference in general, the preponderance of small
churches and the relatively small number of large congregations in the conference makes
this response preferable to an exact matching of the proportions of the conference church
size. It makes it possible to determine what the activities of these larger churches are. It
is not felt that the skew affects the analysis. The most important point is that there are not
proportionately as many larger congregations in the conference as are found in the survey.
0 Size of community (Table 4.2). The survey asked where the responding church is
physically located. The vast majority are in small communities, which was expected since
the west side of Michigan is p: .rin small communities. 62 churches (24.1%) reported
being in communities of 1,000-4,999, 54 churches (21.0%) reported being in communities
smaller than 1,000, and 55 churches (21.4%) are not located in a town. Thus, two-thirds
of the churches in this sample reported their location as being in a small community (under
5,000) or not in a town. In some cases open country churches may serve the residents of
a town, having built new buildings away from the nearest municipality; however, in most
cases, they likely are churches serving rural areas and small towns.

In the West Michigan Conference, there are only a few larger cities. There are no
cities over 1 million, although two respondents indicated their communities were over 1
million. This points to the dimculty of establishing reliability, even on basic demographic

information. On the other hand, the metro area of the largest city does exceed 1 million,

170

6.8. RN use
2 a Bee

on a 33.25% mamas.
2.2 6.8 m4~ ash
6.8. m. m. N has. .6 86.86.—
~.8 6.6 «.6 6. 86.8... 2 68.8.
5.8 E 4.5 2 86.8 268.8
E.» 6.4 an 2 8.24 2 68.6“
o. 8 6.6 an 6. 8.6% 368.2
can 6.6 m6 6. 8% 286.6
6.66 6.3 _.4~ «6 86.4 386..
Q44 m. a o. a 46 83 85 58a

«a «a 4. a 66 .56: a 4286. .8 a 555 Be,

 

Hana Baum Hana ceased

255.550 33>
T

b.5858 he can

oflm 51588086 coca—£565 .. N4 033.

171
and the assumption is that generally, the reported size of a community is indicative of
actual size of the community, even if the estimates of size are somewhat incorrect. This is
supported by the fact that one church reporting a community over 1 million was suburban
and the other was on the outskirts of the city. Nine (n=9; 3.5%) responses were missing.
0 Distribution of churches by attendance across communities (Table 4.3). Although it is
typical to utilize church membership as a measure of church size, church attendance was
used here unless otherwise specified. This was done because it is believed that this
measure would more effectively capture the strength of the congregation. Some
congregations have large memberships but proportionately low attendance. Others, such
as those new churches which have yet to be chartered would show zero members but they
do report average attendance. Also, some churches’ attendance is quite disproportionate,
in either direction, from membership counts, so that attendance is believed to be a better
measure of the actual participatory strength of the congregation. Because these figures
are reported using a standard format to the conference each year, they were deemed to be
fairly reliable.

As can be seen in Table 4.3, there is no pattern of where the churches with larger
average attendance are located. They are distributed across large and small communities.
However, the smallest churches do tend to be clustered in smaller towns and open
country. Again, this is expected as much of the conference is quite rural with disbursed
populations. In addition, smaller churches in communities large enough to have more than
one United Methodist Church have the option of combining very small churches with

another church, allowing members to retain denominational affiliation. This option is not

172

 

 

 

 

3N m 2 NN a 2 NN 2 mm 3. me n _ 38.
N _ _ UMB—
.8 8°68.—
m _ N m — ~ N — m Sofiao
s 25.8—
3 N o _ N _ m $3.3
2 95.8
w _ _ — N N _ Bad?
2 892
3 _ v N _ N v o¢o€N
8 83:
m— _ m N v N N — aamfi
3 Sea
.00 v N v m w _ _ N- w c aaa€
2 8o.—
3 _ _ _ v n z 2 a 83
55 8:qu
R N N m _ ... : 2 e :33
a a 8.32 885:8
8: mm 55.5 .3 03m
.r 83:88 3808 C382: B3888 3808 83.58 983.58 .383. 83808 83:88 83898 3808
:8 8n 8v 8n :3 n2 :2 nN— R: 2.3. .m cute-3 an—a
‘5 8n .8- SV .8- Sn v:- SN ‘5 c: was 7.— ?! mg 9.. 2: v5 or 5938M 5033 2.8360
.8033 338m .8033 5033 5230a 8833 .8038 5230a .8033
886838 585 owflo>< 8.50

 

 

 

3% 383888 mo 8288c a 3 88355 328—0 33 - mé 03:.

 

173
present in a small community, discouraging the closing of small churches. Thus, there are
no churches with average attendance of 50 or less in communities over 10,000, while there
are 60 in communities smaller than 10,000. Attendance, particularly in these smaller
communities, should not be equated with the vitality or health of the congregation as much
as an indicator of the number of people available to contribute resources to social capital
development and offer forms of assistance to persons in the community.

On the other hand, the 60 churches in communities of 1,000 - 4,999 have
considerable range in average attendance. In these smaller communities, there are four
churches with average attendance of 301-400, representing a large percentage of the total
community. Even the many churches found in communities smaller than 1,000 have
proportionately large attendance, suggesting churches with the active participation of a
substantial proportion of the community. While these numbers do not capture the
proportions with complete accuracy, given that many rural church members may not
actually live in the community itself, it hints that churches in small communities may
actually have proportionately more ability to meet needs in their communities than their
counterparts of equal size in large urban areas.

0 Annual budget (Figure 4.1). The annual budgets of all churches are available in the
1995 Conference Journal of the West Michigan Conference. Therefore, all reports were
checked for accuracy. An array of financial information is available from the Journal on
contributions in various categories, including benevolences. Two figures are regularly
reported for churches: the operating budget and the budget which includes both operating

and building expenditures for the year. The latter figure was used for reference, as it more

174

38 38? s cm
gag 2.5
882 5...: 2

88:3
$5.8 a gas 5 3» 33m
omm own ans one can 8v 8n SN 8.. cm

8a 80 8x. 80 gm 8v 8n 8N cow o
9

ON

f 8 8555
Mo 3832

 

 

 

on

 

225 3 05mm

175
accurately represents the amount of money each church raised in 1995. Seven responses
were missing from this category, suggesting a problem with the computer scanning, as any
missing responses were written in by the researchers.

The mean for annual budgets (n=251) was $145,093, and the median was $90,848.
Again, the mean was skewed upward by the reporting of the largest churches in the
conference, but the median gives a more accurate indication of the budget size of the local
churches. One hundred twenty five (125) churches reported budgets under $91,000. All
churches are mandated to provide a minimum salary and benefits to pastors, included the
conference insurance plan, housing (for which there are minimum standards), travel, and
retirement. Minimally, the costs of the minister’s package is about $37,000, if the church
owns the pastor’s home outright13. Smaller churches which share a pastor also share
salary expenses. In addition, all United Methodist churches are expected to pay an
apportionment to support denominational activities. For a smaller church (attendance of
75), this may be as little as $7,000, while for the largest church in the conference, it is over
$120,000. The remaining income of the church is available for expenses of the building
and for all programs of the church, including any which are offered to the community.

The size of the budgets of the churches is important context when looking at their
ability to increase funding. First, the current portion of the budget which is discretionary
is probably somewhat limited, as much of each church’s income is devoted to running the

church and its religious activities. Secondly, when churches report a proportionate ability

 

13 This figure is estimated based on the minimum salary for probationary members with one dependent.
Salary minimums are available from district or conference offices and are determined by the Annual
Conference.

176

to increase finding, it must be considered in relationship to the existing budget. In a
church which has a budget of $91,000 or less, as half of these churches do, an increase of
$9,000 would represent nearly a ten percent increase in the overall budget. While this
would be a substantial increase in finding proportionate to the resources of the church, it
is enough to do only a limited amount of expansion of activity, particularly if paid stafl‘ are
involved.
0 Location of church (Tables 4.4 and 4.5). Respondents were asked to indicate all that
applied from the following list: downtown of the community, transitional neighborhood,
outskirts of the city or town, suburban community (i.e. immediately adjoining a larger
town or city), open country, residential area, and commercial area. 88 churches (34.1%)
are located downtown in their communities (Table 4.4), not surprising as United
Methodist churches in Michigan were often founded around the time the communities
themselves were founded. These numbers vary slightly across tables due to missing
responses on some questions. 96 churches (37.2%) in total were reported as downtown
churches. The largest churches tend to be found in downtown or suburban areas.
However, even some of the smallest churches are downtown, as 14 churches with
attendance of fewer than 50 are located downtown. Many of the remaining smallest
churches are found in open country.

In Table 4.5, the distribution of churches in location types is shown as a fianction of
community size. The trends in where churches are located, with distribution in each
category essentially proportionate to the distribution of churches across difi‘erent sized

communities generally. Few churches are in commercial areas, although 59 (23%) are in

177

 

 

 

 

 

 

8N N. ..N No NN .N ... .... .38.
. . 5.8... 8N. ...... ...: 838m
. . 5.3... 88 ...... ...N 6930..
N . N 58.2.. 8N ...... .2. 838m
... . N . . N .88... 84 ...... ...N 83.8
.... a N N N N . ... 3.8... ....N ...... ...N .828
: N N N N N 888... SN ...... N: 693nm
N. . . . N e35... N: ...... .N. .833
..N N o N N N . N. ”.85... ..N. ...... ...N. .32....
..N N N N N .. 28.8... NN. ...... .... 803.3.
... . N ... . o o ... 8.3... 8. ...... a. 838m
3 N N. ... . N N ... 5.5... 2. ...... .N 838..
NN . N. ..N N ... . ... 38...»... ..N ...... ..N 838m
... N o . . .. e85... NN ...... . .358
N . . 5.5... oz

....fi 8... 8... 9.58 8.6 b.5558 .5... 82.5.5.8 3.5.258

....pbaaao 3.8.8.. 55....» a a... 2.. .saagh 2..
... 3......8 ... 52.58

 

5:32 .3 3.89.03 :22... we couantaa - v6 033.

 

178

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....N C on 3 mm NM 2 ma ....oh
3. . .. .... . N. . .56. .. ... 8.8... .2. N. ......5
mm _ E 2 N _ _ mN 8o.— 52. 8:35
2. m. ... v N N N ..N 83. ... 8....
«N n v _ N N N. 3.3 o. coca
C _ N m m N o 93.3 0. coed.
3 ~ m _ m m N m Sade 0. 08.3
m N N n v m m o 39.3 a. 80.3
.N N m m N w v coed? 0. coeds—

N . . be... ... 8.3....
.58. no... 8.... .358 :95 bag—5:8 :32 ..oogzmmuc 5.5858
3.8558 338...”... gnaw ... N... 2.. .2885 2..
he nub—3B 5 :32525

 

8:80. 23 cu... b82888 .3 8:835 ..o 5:29:65 .. m... 032.

 

179
residential areas.

One area where there appears to be a trend is in churches located in transitional
neighborhoods. 17 churches (6.6%) were identified as being in transitional areas.
Transitional could reflect a number of changes in neighborhoods but suggests that the
church is dealing with some form of change in its environment which is potentially
affecting the church itself. A transitional neighborhood is often a euphemism understood
to mean changing demographics, reflecting a decline in the economic status of the
residents. If that is the meaning for these respondents, then this response might also
reflect increasing needs in the community. Eight of these 17 churches are in communities
of over 50,000. That is, 47% of the churches in transitional neighborhood are in these
larger communities, although they represent less than 13% of the sample. However, 12
churches in transitional areas report average attendance of less than 100 (Table 4.4). The
churches in transitional neighborhoods are small churches, and many of them are located
in larger cities. Yet, only three churches in communities over 50,000 report themselves as
being in jeopardy (Table 4.6). Six churches in these larger cities are struggling, although it
is not clear that it is these same churches which are in transitional neighborhoods.
Nonetheless, it seems possible that these churches may need proportionately more
resources than churches in other locations.

Thirty two of the responding churches (12%) are on the outskirts of town. Those
living in the city or town who do not have transportation may have limited access to
activities at the church on the outskirts. Twenty five churches (10.1%) defined their

location as suburban, while 65 (25.6%) are located in open country. This latter figure,

180

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3N .. ... ... N. 8 .N ......»
NN N N N N ... 4N .5... a ... .....8... .2. ... ......5
NN .. N N. N N. .. ..8.. 5888a
Ne . N .. N .N ..N 8.... ... 8....
N. . N N N N 8...... ... ..8.N
... . N N N 8...: ... 8......
... N N N .. 8.3.... ..8.NN
... . v . o N 88.8 ... ..8.8
o. N N N ... 88.8.. ... ..8.8.
N . . be... ... 88.8....
......N €88. ... 2...... ...... 8.3.5. 8......» ......38... 8.32»
£8.23 ... 8...... ......» ...... 8.8..
......E Em...

 

.....2... ... ......2. ...... .a... 8.555.... .. 8.3.5.5 - N... 2...;

 

181

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmN : ... Nv N. m... an .88.
. . p.380... 8N. ...... S: Begum
_ . 83.5... So ....u Sm Eozcom
m . _ . .5950... can ...... 8v 303.5
m. . _ 2 «.5..an 8v 9... 8m 503.5
NN . v . v N. 82.82.. com ...... SN Begum
... _ m m NUDE»... 8N ...... o... Begum
: . N o N 8380... m... ...... .m. 50.25
NN . . N m o. 9.380... on. ...... N. 503.5
.N n v n o m 83:8... mN. ....u S. Begum
Nm N N m . m h. 83...»... co. ...... on Begum
Nv N m o N. o. p.382: 3.23 3.59.35
9 . v N. N o. w 23...»... cm ...... 0N Begum
v. n v N N . 23:8... mN ...... . gum
_ . p.380... oz
.80... 3:38.. ... 03% 5.. 9.:me 5:3... @1625... 3.52»
8......8 ... 8...... 2...... ...... ......8.
ENE 1&5...

 

......2... .... 5.8.. ...... 858...... ... 8.5.3.... - N... 2...:

 

182
which is even higher than the 55 churches (21.3%) which indicated they are not located in
a town, implies that there are large numbers of churches which are very rural. A drive
around the rural areas of Michigan highlights the importance of these open country
churches as resources in their communities. People are widely disbursed, and there are
ofien few towns where there are buildings with meeting spaces. Therefore, the churches
and schools are the primary building resources, and churches are probably a primary
source of social structure in many rural communities. They are often very small churches
which may have a critical role in their areas. However, the dimculties for people in rural
areas accessing activities at their local church are probably even greater for churches in
open country than for churches on the outskirts of town. Because this group of responses
was not mutually exclusive, it is not possible to report missing responses.

Churches were also asked to indicate if they were in residential or commercial areas.
7.4% (n=19) were commercial and 23.6% (n=61) were residential. Since respondents
were asked to check all that applied from this entire section, it is difficult to account for
the remaining 70% of the churches. While open country churches may be in farm areas,
which is neither residential or commercial, there are obviously missing responses. The
downtown churches alone (34.1%) represent more than the combined responses (31.0%)
of commercial and residential even though it seems that they should have indicated one of
these.

0 Church status (Table 4.6 and 4.7). The purpose of this question was to get estimates
about the relative health of each church. Health of a congregation is distinct from its

strength. Health might be thought of as a church’s long term viability, of its tendency

183
toward maintaining strength as a congregation. Its viability is related to factors such as
the demographic changes in the immediate neighborhood of the church which might affect
the congregation’s long term ability to replace lost members and the satisfaction of its
current members with the organization. A congregation’s strength is related to its current
resources. Thus a church which is currently strong may not be healthy. These distinctions
can be thought of analogously: a person who smokes and is overweight is experiencing
some difliculty breathing and may not be able to do quite as much as she did previously.
Although she may still be strong, her health appears to be compromised, both because
there are symptoms suggesting health problems and because of factors which are strongly
associated with declining health. Hence her health could be defined compromised, even
though she is still strong. The converse, limited strength and good health, is also a
possibility, of course.

Response options for the question on church health were intended to be ordinal
and were treated as such in the analysis. In the piloting of the instrument, respondents’
comments suggested that they viewed response categories as ordinal. Response options
were (1) healthy and growing, n=91 (36.1%); (2) healthy and stable, n=70 (28.7%); (3)
healthy and getting smaller, n=13 (5.3%); (4) struggling somewhat financially and with
membership, n= 42 (17.2%); (5) in transition but stable, n=18 (7 .4%); and (6) in
jeopardy, struggling to survive, n=11 (4.7%). Nine (3.7%) responses were missing.

Thus, 7 0% of the churches responding reported that they were currently healthy, while
only 4.7% viewed themselves as being in immediate jeopardy. The remaining respondents,

slightly over one quarter, appeared to have concerns regarding the health of their

184

congregations, but do not view their churches as being in immediate danger.

The potential for bias in responses regarding church health should be considered.
While the surveys are confidential, it is possible that pastors could be concerned with
presenting their congregations in the best possible light to outsiders. They may also give
biased responses due to their own desire to have a well-functioning church. An addition
question is whether church health affected which churches returned the survey. The
churches most in jeopardy may have the fewest discretionary resources with which to
complete the survey or to report on the survey. On the other hand, those churches might
have responded, wanting to show what they are doing. Therefore, it can only be
suggested that these distributions be viewed cautiously.

One other point should be made with respect to a church’s perception of its health.
There are churches as large as 301 - 400 in average attendance who indicated they are
struggling somewhat, and churches only slightly smaller which stated their congregation is
in transition, although stable (Table 4.7). This contrasts with churches of membership of
1-25 which rated themselves as healthy. To an onlooker, this may seem incongruous.
However, many historically large United Methodist Churches, often those in larger cities,
have experienced precipitous drops in membership and attendance. While their average
attendance still appears quite strong, some churches now have an average attendance of
less than a quarter of what they had in their prime years. In addition, their current
membership is often comprised of many retirees. Thus, the health of the congregation is
very important to consider even while it is difficult to interpret. Further, it is not always a

function of size. In the context of this study, a church’s health may have more

185
implications for the sustainability of its efforts than it does for its current potential to

initiate them.

Question 1 Current social capital-developing activities

The first question considered was “To what extent are churches engaging in
activities that build social capital?” The data suggest that nearly all churches are engaged
in social capital building for their communities, through a wide range of non-religious
activities, and that a fairly large percentage are involved in a wide variety of activities.
However in general, services are concentrated in emergency and concrete service types,
with other reported activities scattered in smaller percentages across the many remaining
services.

The discussion of social exchange makes reference to the incidence of reciprocity
and the connection between reciprocity and social capital. One consideration in the social
capital production of local congregations is that they participate in social capital
development at multiple levels by creating opportunities for reciprocity. By making
resources available for others to use, even if the church is never directly involved, the
activities become a source of social capital. Those activities are included in this analysis in
only a limited way but are an important contribution churches make to their communities.
The other point' is that there are two social capital beneficiaries of these church-based
activities. The obvious is the so-called service recipient. For a variety of reasons, it is
important to make social capital available to persons who are less advantaged in

communities. However, the other inevitable beneficiaries of the social capital production

186
are the members of the congregations who participate as volunteers and planners of
activities. Thus, the sheer presence of activities in churches, even if there are not
immediately demonstrable effects on the community’s needy, are valuable and develop
social capital. It also points to the importance of creating opportunities for persons who
have sought assistance from the church to participate in community based activities of the
church, should they choose, as it provides additional social capital for them.

Table 4.8 presents the responses to each activity. In the instrument, there were a
total of ten groups of activities on which to report, with 58 activities total, and an “other”
category under each group, giving ten more response categories (Section 3 of the
questionnaire) for a total of 68. Table 4.8 is arrayed in the same order as the survey. A
raw count of services was generated for each activity (Table 4.8) along with a cumulative
count for congregations (Figures 4.2 and 4.3) in order to give a sense of the extent of
current social capital development.

Those who only hosted the activities are shown in the second column of Table 4.8.
The direct sponsor column shows all the churches which reported only one response of
collaboration or direct sponsorship. The number of churches who reported more than one
type of direct involvement is reported for each activity in the Multiple Response column of
Table 4.8. This shows the possible extent of underreporting of activities given this method
of counting. However, it also clarifies the raw number of churches involved in each
specific activity. Reporting the multiple replies in raw counts would have inflated the
number of churches, by implying a larger number of churches involved in each level of

activity than actually exists. In essence, the method used limits the error across churches

187
while undoubtedly incurring it at the individual church level for a given activity, the latter
error seeming more acceptable given the goals of this study.

Figure 4.2 shows the distribution of the number of total activities supported
directly by the church, either alone or in collaboration with another provider. The largest
clustering is found between three and seven services, with a median of seven activities.
With the range from zero to seven total services accounting for approximately 50% of the
churches, with the remaining half of the churches ranging from seven to 35 activities.

Ten of the churches (3.9%) did not report direct involvement in any activities.
Thus there is a small segment of this sample which is not involved indirect support for
activities which included the community. The largest numbers of reports in a category are
between three and seven direct activities. Beyond ten, the number of churches drops
sharply, with only 15 (5.8%) of the churches reporting more than 20 activities.

The activities in which West Michigan United Methodist local churches are most
involved at present are concrete and emergency services, such as food pantry/bank (79.1%
of the churches), emergency funds (56.3%) clothing banks (51.5%), soup kitchens
(27.6%), fiirniture distribution (21.7%), emergency shelter programs (17.5%), Habitat for
Humanity (45.0%), fimd raising for victims of crime or fire (40.7%) or for persons with
health problems (32.5%), and CROP walks (78.3%). CROP walks are community wide
hunger relief fund-raisers, sponsored by Church World Service, held throughout Michigan
each year. Habitat for Humanity, a program to build affordable housing for low income

families, is of particular interest. A volunteer intensive program which requires hundreds

188

 

-.....

 

 

 

o ... : ... m 8.3 3. 3.88.2.5
c... a fin a c... o flea 9N 888.88.. 8963.
v... . v... 3 a... 0. n2. SN 38...:
.8 ...-0.... 83.0 8.8.. 8.. «.82
8.. v .odN S a... N h. .h 3. .88....
.58. 82.8.8.8: 8.. «.82
ed a Ev N. v... . ado 3N nouns—.8... 8.68..
3.5% 3.5.8.50
v... . .... 3. ..n m ndr SN ...-.58.. 820.... £88”.—
vd v. a. n 3. in v. N...” 2. 32......
o... ... 83%.... 2... .2885.
a... N a6N on c... a ndr NcN 8.55.8... 8.8....9 8.3.95...
...N .. adv eN. v... . ..3. N. ...... 9.28.0
W... ..N 0.8 h... a... N NdN N». .18.. .80.. 88:3. gel—fl
x. ... 88.2.8. ... 882.8. ... 83.2.8. ....
.....03 .....68 ......o.\.
8:88.. 28.8% 8:38.
2......2 .02... ...... 8.. oz
Bani—8.. 0......52 8.538.. 0.9.5

 

 

 

 

5.3.2. .... 8:83.... ..o 8.837. - a... 2%...

 

189

 

 

 

 

 

a... c n." e e... . at. ... 3.8.535
v... . ...... an a... a ..vw EN .882... 97:8... .2... ... >255...
a.. n Was an ...N a 0.2. ca. .5335 ......»
.... 98...... «a; £5.58 a.....
..n a a. .v we. a... N 2% o... 3.33.88 8:...»
...?» .... 5.5.5.5.. 8.. .83.: ......t h.........:...u\ufi=...a
...... c .... n. a... N a..... 2.. 8.0.0835
h." h ....u 2. ad. mu nan nu. 3.5.5.8 ... 5.3.9.2. 8.. 85>...
v6 v. aflb an. a... N a..." cm .358
... .. ...... ... a.. m «.8 .... 3832..
5.8.. 5.3 23:285.. 8...
a.. m «an 8. v6 . adn an . a.....o ... 2...... ......o... .0... 38-8 .8 all... 1.....—
..\. n. 8.2.2.8. ... 888.8. ... 83.2.8. .—
..a... .x. .1... .8 =- .... 3
£88. .85... 8......8.
2.2:: .025 ...... .8: oz
«8.8%». a..—£55. 82.2.8. 0.9.6

 

 

 

 

€035.53 5.2.0.. .... 3.6.2... ..o .3832 - a... 0......

 

190

 

 

 

 

 

3 v o; v n.» «N v.3 was 958.5 .850
ed a ad vu fin u v.5 can 853$ 038800
ed o a..... X 2. am ..oh 3n $3.3 gm
:6 o n.» «N «.2 nu v.8 «an 998.5323?
332 5.8.. .850
3. o ..n a a.. n 5.3 3." 8.5%.? 8 8:8» 82
Yo _ 9w 2 «d u Qua an" .965 €283 8.35
o; v rd 3 an S «.3 Eu R58» «8.83.35
a... a fin b 5.. an 1.; :u .8... £28.? ..an .20...
ed a fin w a..” 2 «do uvn 8:95 83- 8:833 850
vd _ he 2 n: hm v.8 wan 680 REP-u tins-11...:
.852 <8 9.3.8 .5. 3.2:.
.x. ..— BERIE ..— BERIE ... 89.38.. a
=4 ..o o» =uuo Q. :50 X
mom—.38.. Snag 8:83.
03222 525 25 .8: oz
82.2.8.— oEESz 82:58.. 03:6

 

 

 

 

Goa—£258 33:8 3 8:055 mo $9832 - ad 033.

 

l9]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a; m o.“ 2 as 2 ”.3 can 3:025 0050
N. m 0.0 2 ed a fig um" 08:00 50H
m: v ad— un n6. hm nah ou— 338m 30
EN 5 ad" on «.2 on «.3 n2 5.60m ~3m
ad N «.0. 2 «d N Qua an” .20
.30» 2 8.0:: Ba Icy—mot «team
a.. n o; _ an MN 0 0.3 3 a 5.220 585.0
8.. Echo:— Bfio 8 .0300 8¢< h
o; v 3. 3 ad an 9% n _ N 25500; .003 .3. £85233
ed a ad n «A n fima nun 3302.0 0000.5 850
ad a Eu 5 a.. n v.3 ova $0.. .240:
a.. n fin" ow as a. «Kw 2.- 836 coo—m
ed a Ev 2 a; n v.3 SN 00...... .300.—
cd o a; m vd _ «do Vnn 02:0 «5.92
0d _ S. 2 We 2 flew an" a; 0.5080; .085
0d _ 0.». 2 né : n. a can 03.0 .200: 510:
.\o "— 80890.. ..— 896380 ..— 0020080 ..—
=0 ..o .x. :30 o\. =0 ..o .x.
00008000 085% 8:302
202:: .025 :8 .8: oz
0032—00.. 0.0.0.52 0032—00.. 035m

 

30:50:08 33300 3 3:830 me 03:52 .. ad 033.

 

192

 

 

 

 

 

 

a... a a.. n ....N 0 ....3 ...: 3:80....28

ad a Ev «— ad a via 3." 898

ad a 06 E a.. a 2a wan 8033.8 0385.

n.n a man an aw. 2 flaw or. 880.80 .83.:

ad a a." a N.— n ..wa avu £10 82

...... a ..8. 0.3.5.. 38... .28

ad a «d a. a.. n ago ran $0.30 5..
ad _ can I «6 2 a.aa bun 880.0 mum—58:80 Echo
5.5.5.80 005035-30

ad a a.. 0 0d . fiaa nun Aid 0050

ad a vd _ N._ a naa «an 9.3!... 1.8.5 g5

ad a ad a vd _ ado nnu 9:50.: 7%

ad a ad a ad a ada— ann EEO—0.60 :80:

ad a ad a ad a ada— ann 800 gig 3:55:80

0... c 0.. .. o... c 30 %u 8...: .880

ad a a.. n ad a fiaa an" mam—.15 3..
ad a ad a ad a ada an" .5880..— ao_. III—UP..—
25E

.\e a 88090.. ..— 88092 .— 882—02 "—
:50: :30: :03:
80:090.. 080% 8:88.
23...: .025 as .8: oz
0032—00.. 0.32:2 82.2.09. 0.95

 

 

 

 

30:05:03 @3300 .3 355:0 a0 .3532 - ad 030%

 

193

 

 

 

82:58.. 23:3:

 

 

 

832—8.. 9.9.5

 

o... a ..a 5 ad a 2a «an as:
535 2.. £38 32.. 3.963.
a... c I. _ a... a 98 an 80
ad a ad a N; n a..: a: 853?.“- .aa 0:80..—
3 a S n a... c 23 2a 8532. 2&3
vd _ a._ v vd _ Eva an" 82.8.3 8a Stack— 83.8.80.—
3 c S: S I. _ 3a 2 N 53:. :82 .58
I. _ an 2 I. _ v.3 SN 562$ .25
ad a 2 S we _ 98 a." ”8.333 88.. ".....z. 8
a... 892?. 8:3 38m
2 m 3. _ _ o... c 93 3." 2.2%; .53.
o\o ..— momcoaué ..— 88098 n 822—8.. "—
5%: 5%: 5%:
wacoamfi 88on 8:39:
29.32 525 :8 mom oz

 

302.558 3338 an moses—t mo “BEE/H - ad 033.

 

194

5 new 0

SN

9:25 23>

EB: :82

Z
magmasm

59.95 686 5.; 3.32.83;

I8
8

mm ON 9
I I

3 m c

 

 

 

b o

. 2 3555
1 s .8532

 

.ow

 

 

 

on

 

8036.... Mo 533.5me Nd gamma

195

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:235 .o .3832 32236530 I I I
«8.23 .o .3532
9 on 8 on on 2 o— a o
o . . , . . . . o
\‘.
x
m I \ , 8
\
\
\
or I \ 1 8w
\
\
«2.95:0 .0 .3352 9 I \ I on? 253:an
\
\
ON I \\ 8N
\\
\\\
mm I I .III: I I IIIIII I RN
8 I. - Sm

moorcom Mo .8323me 023—2555 .. mé 053m

196
of hours of sweat equity from prospective owners, Habitat has the potential for creating
considerable social capital for all those involved.

Beyond concrete and emergency services, there are only a handfiil of activities
which were reported by a larger number of churches. Nearly 30% of the churches
reported having assisted a nonprofit organization with fund-raising events in the previous
year. Other categories which had response rate higher than 20% included Blood Drives
(25.2%), community work projects other than Habitat for Humanity (23.7%), musical
concerts (26%), and Boy Scouts (25.6%). The responses to activities for youth and
children will be discussed in detail below. Thus, few activities other than emergency and
concrete services are supported directly by these United Methodist churches with any
consistency, as there is at best modest participation reported for the remaining activities.
In light of these figures, it seems fair to say that although it is difficult to predict exactly
what services, beyond concrete ones, will be available at a given church, nearly all
churches are involved in a some level of social capital producing activities.

The sole exception was the very limited response to the economic development
activities listed. For all eight activities listed under economic development, there was a
total of seven positive responses. This was not a surprise, given that these are
predominately middle-class, white churches. It is important to note this lack of services,
as social capital which can be used for economic improvement is critical for disadvantaged
communities. While it is surely possible to use social capital developed through other
connections for economic uses, directly targeting economic development may be the more

efiicient means of achieving that form of social capital. These findings point to an

197
important social capital area for the disadvantaged in which the West Michigan United
Methodist Churches appears to be lacking.

There are two categories of activities which were omitted from the possible
response options: technology and education. The advising clergy did not identify either of
these areas for inclusion, while they did include other relatively new activities such having
a parish nurse, implying that if there are technology programs in churches, they are
unaware of them. However, technology is increasing, as some churches in the West
Michigan Conference now have Web Pages, at times developed since the survey was
administered. The author is unaware of any computer-based programs and none were
indicated by respondents. It is nonetheless possible that there are church-based computer
technology programs in the conference.

Educationally focused programs were also not expressly identified in the listed
activities. There are some indications of educationally focused programs in the write in
section. There were no more than five in any one areas, but they included tutoring, GED
for teen parents, and literacy programs. It is not known how many may have been missed
due to this omission, but it seems unlikely that the numbers are large.

One of the concerns regarding the recent call by public officials for increased
church activities in the non-religious arena, is that few seem to have taken into account the
possibility that churches may have begun responded in the 1980’s to emerging needs in
their communities. It was unrealistic to ask pastors to make reliable estimates of the
changes over the past 16 years . However, reliable responses did seem possible for

questions concerning the past two years. Therefore, the survey sought to identify the

198
amount of change in both requests for assistance and in response to that change within the
past two years. For each question, the seven point Likert scale responses ranged from
considerable decrease to no change to considerable increase. These numbers are given
in Tables 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12.

Pastors were asked to respond separately for membership and for non-members.
Small to considerable increases in requests for assistance by non-members were reported
by 58.5% of the churches (n=151), while 70.5% (n=182) reported response to non-
member needs. Results for changes in requests for assistance by non-members are found
in Table 4.9 and response to requests by non-member is found in Table 4.10. For
members, 40.7% (n=105) reported an increase in requests (Table 4.11). Again amount of
response was greater than amount of requests, as 50.8% (n=131) reported some level of
increased response to members’ needs (Table 4.12). So, for both members and non-
members the amount of response reported was greater than the requests which were
received.

Some increase in assistance on the part of the churches had been anticipated given
the ongoing cuts in funding for social services, including emergency services. It was not
anticipated that the churches’ response would be greater than the need with which they
were presented. Reliability cannot be assured for these responses, giving less confidence
to the findings. At least three explanations are possible for the disparity between requests
and response. One is that the pastors are biased in their recall as a function of time or as a
result of “euphoric recall”. That is, they remember their churches responses as having

been better than they actually were. They also may simply recall their own responses

Tables 4.9-4. 12

Table 4.9 - Need identified for
non-members, past two years

Table 4.10 - Response to non-

 

 

 

 

Changes in
direct
requests by
nonmembers
F % of Total
Decrease 13 5.0
No change 89 34.5
Increase 151 58.5

 

 

 

 

 

members, ast two years

Changes in

response to

needs of
nonmembers
F % of Total

Decrease 5 1.9
No change 68 26.4
Increase 182 70.5

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.11 - Need identified for

Table 4.12 - Response to

 

 

 

 

 

members, ast two years

Changes in

direct
requests by
members
F % of Total

Decrease 12 4.7
No change 139 53.9
Increase 105 40.7

 

 

 

 

members, aast two years
Changes in
response to
needs of
members
F % of Total
Decrease 4 1.6
No change 119 46.1
Increase 131 50.8

 

 

 

 

 

200
better than they do the requests. The other explanation is that churches had simply made
an increased effort to respond to the needs of the community somewhat independently of
the actual requests.

The reliability and accuracy of such subjective reports do need to be questioned for
all the questions which ask the pastors’ perceptions their congregations’ attitudes.
Gilovich (1997) describes with humor and considerable detail, the tendency toward
selective and biased recall of events by observers. The likelihood of bias suggests the need
for caution in interpreting these numbers. Pastors who wish to represent their churches
and by implication their own leadership positively could over-report the church’s role in
the community. On the other hand, lapsed time might lead to faulty recall and under-
reporting. There is not, though, any reason to believe that such bias would be more likely
on one set of questions that another. Thus, there is no rationale for predicting a single
dominant type of bias. Correction of this error would require a sophisticated design for
evaluating just these questions. In lieu of that, it is assumed that there is bias in the
responses, but that its direction cannot be determined. In addition, the size of the sample,
which is quite large, gives more confidence in the results. Still, the findings and
interpretations should be viewed with less confidence that if it had been possible to
establish the reliability of the responses through an established method, such as a retest.
Internal reliability tests, such as a split half were not appropriate because the individual
questions were measuring different sources of social capital production potential, and thus
were not comparable. It was assumed that some questions would result in difl’erent

answers by the same church because its ability to increase volunteering, for example, does

201
not necessarily mean the church has an ability to increase subsidized building use.

With these cautions in mind, it appears that this group of churches has increased its
services during the past two years in response to greater need. While this survey provides
no evidence of the direction of change prior to these two years, it is plausible that the
trend reflected may be part of a longer term trend to increase services in the churches as
governmental services have been cut. One pastor of a downtown church in a small
community, in a personal conversation, stated that when general assistance was
eliminated, his church’s food pantry was ‘Vviped out”. It was able to compensate,
restocking the food pantry and keeping it stocked. However, his perception is that
families, rather than coming in occasionally, are now counting on the food pantry on a
monthly basis. The church is providing more food each month to keep the pantry stocked.
This may be typical of how churches have already increased their response to need. The
services reported those increased within the past two years include many responses
concerning increased support for food redistribution programs and emergency assistance
efforts.

One comment in a survey raised an issue which merits inclusion. A pastor pointed
out, seemingly in some fi'ustration with the questionnaire, that many members of his or her
congregation were volunteering on their own outside the church. This survey was
expressly developed to identify church sponsored activities. Earlier studies, notably the
work of the Independent Sector (Hodgkinson, et a1, 1992; Hodgkinson, et al, 1996b),
point to the positive connection between participation in religious congregations and

volunteering. It was recognized that it was not possible for the survey to get reliable

202
estimates from the one or two people completing it regarding the volunteering and other
charitable contributions being made individually by church members. The contributions of
those individual efforts outside the local congregation are profound and should not be
forgotten.
Question 2 With what likelihood do churches report of their ability to expand social
capital development activities?

The second question was “With what likelihood do churches report their ability to
expand social capital development activities?” Nearly all the churches (n=246, 96.5%)
indicated some level of ability to increase the resources they made available to the
community (Table 4.13). The range was considerable. In addition, the responses were
scattered across the four resources areas of volunteering, fiinding, subsidized building use,
and direct programming.

Pastors completed four questions (Appendix, Section 4, Questions 5-8) in which
they estimated their congregations’ willingness and capacity to expand their involvement
in community based activities. The responses were again rated on the seven point scale
Likert ranging from considerable decrease to no change to considerable increase.
Responses are shown in Table 4.13 and Figure 4.4.

Two of the four questions were deemed to be related more directly to social
capital development, those concerning volunteering (Q# 6) and additional involvement in
direct programming (Q# 8). Funding and making buildings more available, while they will
lead to increased social capital, do not directly involve the church or its members in social

capital development unless they are increased in conjunction with actual provision of

203

 

 

odd. ..mN
dd N .50...
no N used).
539$
ddd. Ndd mmN .Se...
ddd. dd ddd. ad ad N N.
No... d.N Ndo N.. N. . m ..
dd... ..m odd N.. N. . m d.
..do n... add M... m... .. o
03 ms. «Nd dd ..d N w
..Nw ..dN ...Nw v... Md .N h
1Q. adv Om. m... .... 3 o
“.3 ddm ..om ...... dd. on m
3.... m9. d.Nv vd. Nd. ..v v
..dN ..nw BUN ed dd NN m
m... Ndd dd. ..m ..m m. N
00 ndd dd «.6 No 0. .
N.NN 2b m.m dd «d N d
can vdo EN N. N.. m .-
..do «.3 0.. ed vd . N-
a..... Ndo N.. vd vd . m-
add 93 dd vd vd . 0.
odd. odd. vd vd vd . ..-
E88“. Eugen. E355. .583. .586“. 23> 552.88...
03.22.50 9.8.255 033.250 033.255
2669. 9,289.52 damaged

£69m “OP-=80.- Dalohuflm 6. :380995

.80...

wanna).

3.3.85

~33...» 62

unGEuuQ

8.89.8 owes? 2 base ..o.aq.o::< - m. .v 03....

204
services by the congregation. Responses to those questions were not individually
analyzed.

In Table 4.14 and Figure 4.5 the distribution of scores for volunteer potential is
shown. 86.3% (n= 220) of the pastors reported their congregations had some ability or
willingness to increase volunteering, if encouraged. 3 responses were missing. 41.1%
pastors believed their church’s potential increase would be small, 37.6% believed that their
churches could be induced to increase their volunteering a moderate amount, and 6.6%
felt their churches could increase their volunteering considerably.

In Table 4.15 and Figure 4.6, the results for increasing programs are reported.
With four responses missing, 81.1% (n=206) of the pastors reported a potential to
increase the number of programs for which the church would be the primary provider.
57.9% of respondents foresaw a small increase, 20.5% a moderate increase, and 2.8% a
considerable increase. It was anticipated that replies in this areas would reflect the
smallest potential as it requires the greatest resources and that tendency was found in the
responses.

In previous surveys of religious congregations, churches have tended to report an
intention of increasing their work, regardless of their current level of non-religious
services (Hodgkinson, et al., 1992). While this survey asked their potential to do more, it
is possible that in the case of both that study and this one, responses reflect a wish to do
more rather than a likelihood of actually doing more.

Combined with the findings discussed in the first question concerning how much

churches have already increased their response to need, there are indications that the

205

m ow N mg
32.: 23>
.382 so: 2
8.335

sea—.0 35:83 5 8:889. ..E :08 £82.". 28 5:823. 0.8.0 v.3.

 

 

 

 

3:35? 5.5% 88m}.
85 o8. 8m 8m 8v 8N o
agency. 3.-
O
O
.0.
A
o o + 38:82
o 0880:.
o m... + * 2 3:28
o 0 ii. *
O 1 m
o * t0
. + + “I.
O «Q - OF
- n..
on

 

3% £955 .3 208 3.8980 vé 2am...

206

 

 

QR: an
N._ m 30,—.
S m 059,3 83%
odo— mda 3N 30H
odo— nd 3x: he 0.0 E 000055 03303980
«.8 «1% 03 23 ER no 08065 0.8032
0.? New 2m O? 0.9. m2 0000.85 gm
3; ...: a: a: Z. a 005% oz
:5 0.3 c.— N._ a; n 0000800 :55
odo— cdo— .5 to to _ 0800800 03806850
0:080“. 0:080; £08050 308$ 30> 553300
03:03:50 032350 0233550 0503.50
328m 02:89.82 000003”—

uat08=20> 0380:. 8 .3388—

~83.

mfimmmz

23>

3:02:29, 0&55 2 3:30 @2860: .. E .v 030,—.

207

m :32: m v8
0:23 22>

5:002 :00: 2
803.0%

£2.50 3:20:60 :0 8:80.52 .3. :08 £2.50 0:: 3:002:00 0—25 ”:00—

8:35.00 5.55 8203:

83 82 So 80 80 com o
88: u E . I r -

 

c

0 .F

.N

9.52:2?
00020:.

_ _ __ v 0:20:29.

0 4**O ;
*0," 0.30;.
+4 *5 L

00;”

0

 

 

 

 

05m H.220 3 m:t000:=_o> :_ 098:0 m6 050E

208

odo— hmn 33,—.

 

 

3 v 3°:

0; v 923:2 880% 9:009—
32 33 :3 3o:
:8. «a :8. a." Z b 3.862 03.50280
0.8 «.2 NR . 0.2 NS an 8862 3.582
N. E o. a E: E 3“ o: 8362 :25
0.2 ”:3 S: 0.: n: 2 005% oz

:8. :2: 2 2 2 m 88:80 :95 22>

agn— afiuouom «gm “spam «Egon “023/ «505m >28:qu

0:33:30 0:33:30 0:33:30 3:03:30
03:80 0:389:02 08:30.:
2:209:— 5: £0.55 03000:. 3 32:03.0

«Enumeq 30:3 0393 3 5:30 20390:: - 2 .v 0300.

209
ability of congregations to engage in additional non-religious activities is at best moderate.
Churches appear interested in engaging more in social capital activities, yet seem to
already have expanded and do not have unlimited ability to do more.

In order to better assess the churches’ ability to increase their activities across
areas, a composite score was developed from their responses to the four questions. The
responses used the seven point Likert scale. A numerical value was assigned to each
response, as shown below, and then all the individual scores were added to create one

composite score:

0Considerable decrease -3
0Moderate decrease -2
OSmall decrease -1
0No change 0
OSmall increase +1
0Moderate increase +2
0Considerable increase +3

As there were four questions, the range of possible scores was from -12 to +12,
with a score of 0 (zero) representing no change. A positive overall score represented
potential increase in resources and/or activities, while a negative score indicated an overall
ability to decrease response. The number of churches for each summary score is shown in
Table 4.13 and depicted by church size in Figure 4.3. The overall score was also used as a
dependent variable in the regression model developed in the next section, Question 3,

where it is referred to as the potential to increase resources.

210

m 2 w an
magi 23>
5602 :82 z
mosmzfim

55.3 3.522% 5 8:829. he :08 £955 28 3:823 325 $3—

8.35? 5.35 889.4

85 09: 80 80 8v SN 9

I I l.

 

58... u 5.

0 Gun

 

o e “3* .m

o o+a+#*a

 

 

 

25505
E: c955
9.38:.

2 .5523

8% :82? an mEEmoa 5: 282—0 8385 2 3.58m 9v oSME

211

Only 3.5% (n=9) churches indicated no ability to increase their work or probable
decrease. The remaining churches indicated at least a small ability to increase their efforts
in one area. About 20% (n=51) had scores between one and three, with an additional
69% (n=176) with scores of four to eight. The remaining 6.5% (n=19) composite scores
of nine to 12. As these scores could be the sum of any combination of responses, it is
instructive to consider these scores in the context of considerable increase responses for
the individual items. For each of the questions, the potential for considerable increase
was as follows: building use was largest, at 10.6% (n=27), contributions and volunteering
were close to the same, at 7.1% (n=18) and 6.7% (n=17), and new programs directly run
by the church was very limited, at 2.8% (n=7). The 19 churches reporting more than an
eight point cumulative score must have reported considerable increase in one or more
categories. This leaves few responses of considerable increase from the remaining
churches.

Thus, with a few notable exceptions, the churches reported an ability to increase
their resource investment in their communities as small to moderate amount.

Additionally, a large proportion of the churches report the potential to increase resources
in two or more areas, although not a large amount.

One difficulty with interpreting the findings in this section of questions, on both the
individual and the composite scores, is the imprecise measure used. Aside from reliability
problems with estimates, the response categories are proportionate to the size of the
church or its current activities. Estimates of small, moderate, and considerable were used

rather than more precise measures such as estimates of percentages or numbers of change.

2 12
The reliability of percentage estimates would likely have not been any better, and
estimating numbers seemed inappropriate as a response for questions such as potential
increase in building use. Therefore, it is important to recognize individual responses as

proportionate to the size of that church and its current level of activities.

Question 3 What characteristics of churches incline them toward greater social
capital development activities in their local communities?

In order to assess this, it was necessary to identify relevant characteristics of
churches and to identify appropriate measures of social capital which would permit
comparison of the churches.

Two previously described scores, a count of current activities with direct involvement and
perceived potential to increase resources, were used as outcome measures of the overall
involvement of churches in social capital development activities for their communities. A
count of the activities in which each church had direct involvement, number of activities
with direct involvement, was used for measurement of the churches’ current social capital
activities. Potential for fiiture involvement used the composite score derived from
responses to the four questions regarding potential (See Appendix A, Section 4, Q# 5-8).
The derivation of this score is discussed above in Question 2. In addition, the scores for
potential to increase volunteering and potential to increase church run programs were
examined separately as outcome variables in the analysis.

The characteristics which were believed most likely to influence social capital

activities in local churches were average church attendance, an indicator of the overall

2 l 3
strength of the congregation and of the number of possible volunteers, size of community,
and the health of the church. This last variable was a measure of the organizational health
of the church. Budget was also assumed to be a predictor but was expected to be a
function of size of the congregation: the more members there are, the more money the
church is likely to generate. The correlation value for attendance and budget was high,
.656 , leading to the exclusion of budget in the regression model.

One outlying case, a church whose attendance was recorded as over 1100 in the
data set, was excluded from the correlation values. Review of the figures (West Michigan
Annual Conference, 1996) to determine the average attendance for the largest church in
the conference showed it to be considerably lower than this. Figures 4.5 and 4.6, which
include that church, illustrate its relationship to and effect on the regression line. It was
certain that this attendance figure was incorrect and having a pronounced efi’ect on the
analysis. Therefore, it was removed. Its removal strengthened the correlation values. It
was not removed from the regression because church size was not used as a variable.

A two-tailed Pearson correlation was run on these variables and the outcome
variables, with the results shown in Table 4.16. One outlying attendance score previously
identified was deleted fi'om this analysis, as it would have had an impact on a number of
the correlation values, and it was clearly an error.

Note that health of the churches, a variable for which responses were deemed to
be ordinal, was included in the Pearson correlation. Spearman’s Rho was run first, and
then those results were compared to those in the Pearson’s correlation where the data

were treated as interval. The values were so similar that it seemed acceptable to include

214
health in the Pearson’s correlation, even though it is technically an ordinal value.

Significance levels are shown in the Table 4.16 for all variables. A number of the
relationships were significant, although the correlation scores were not very large in any of
them. For the number of activities with direct involvement by each church, average
attendance has the largest correlation (r = .357), then size of community (r=.297), church
health (r = .207), and budget (r = .208). All of these correlation values are significant at
the .01 level.

The correlation values with number of activities with direct involvement are all
quite small, limiting their predictive value. However, they do suggest that larger churches
and churches in larger communities are somewhat more likely to have more activities than
are smaller churches or those in smaller communities. In addition, greater health of the
church is mildly predictive of more social capital producing activities.

Correlation scores for the other outcome variable, potential to increase resources
for activities, do not show comparable levels of significance. For the potential to increase
resources score, the correlations with average attendance (r = .167), and with health (r =
.177), both significant at .01, were mildly predictive. However, in spite of having
adequate significance, these values are so low that they have limited practical value in
determining what characteristics of churches predict their tendency to increase their social
capital activities. In generally, the likelihood of churches to report having a potential to
increase their resources is distributed across churches regardless of attendance,
community size, or health. This finding was not unexpected. As explained earlier, 96.5%

of the churches reported an ability to increase some dimension of their resources. In

215

ooo.~

co mo—o

o. :vo

on emoo

on

wood

a v26

5.. woNo

33 335m

99 No_.o

ooo. _

too

on mbNo

.9 55—6

0. ENG

Q. ond

a. homo

5:2
.326

no ~Nv.o

goo

ooo._

so hmmo

mvoo

... 52o

nZo

cc boNo

Ewan—E8
.3 3%

co owed

no MbNo

.3 hmmo

ooo. _

co 5.0—6

.9 VONo

cc mvmd

: bmmo

3565::
55:0
omEo><

“an—o

.8 hb—d

mvoo

go ho—o

ooo._

co omho

.5 v2.6

no 92o

200a

mocha—Ono»
8885
2 38.8

mooo

no 3N6

o hm—o

o9 voNo

co omho

ooo._

.i Nmmo

o om_.o

«EN—me:—
E: .355
8835

2 33:88

323$ .22 3o 05 a 58%? 2 830:8 .
.8253 E3 :5 05 3 again a 830:8 :

9 v2.0

o. oNNo

«So

.8 mvmo

co v2.6

99 Nmmo

ooo.~

a. Nh—d

mega—53>
8885
2 33:88

9.. moNo

2. homo

3 End

e. hmmo

co v0.6

0 om—d

co Nh—d

ooo._

8.26%

.85

.3 has:

23>

on” .omBm

5.8.. 555

335858 ..o “Em

35:83
£823 owflfi><

088 80588
8865 2 3:33a—

mgpa 5: £823
88.55 8 3:58am

w§.§3>
8885 2 32:88

528%
823 .3 bop—SE 33>

neon—2.30 net-o.—

moorcow 33 8233083 .353 .3 anE cog—ebony - 2 .v 035.

216

mooo

ooo.o

ooo.o

Nmoo

”So

emoo

~oo.o

8:3 333m

mooo

ommo

ooo.o

mooo

ooo.o

ooo.o

_oo.o

5:2
555

ooo.o

om~.o

ooo.o

_wv.o

_mo.o

Foo

ooo.o

338888
.3 cum

ooo.o

ooo.o

ooo.o

ooo.o

Nooo

ooo.o

ooo.o

353533
3:50
omflo><

Nmoo

mood

.wvo

ooo.o

ooo.o

ooo.o

ooo.o

28»
E88
8835

2 33:83

wfio

ooo.o

Zoo

Nooo

ooo.o

ooo.o

hnoo

3::ch

:E 3823 ‘

9.835
2 3.98

omoo

ooo.o

Koo

ooo.o

ooo.o

ooo.o

ooo.o

258—53>
8885
8 33:03am

83 can .033

Sod .3303 38:30
ooo.o b35853 .3 03m
ooo.o 3:3:33

3823 omfio><
ooo.o 038 80582

8835 2 33:85

:86 8338: :E 39:23
8865 2 33:83
ooo.o 3.5853»
8885 2 33:83
380%
323 .3 83:5: 33>
320%
38.3.
.3 83:5:
23>

Gasé .ufi

802:3:03 303.8 35 83983803 3823 .3 3.38: 333.230 - 3. .v 83,—.

217

03

3%

SN

mm

53

mg

ovm

ov~

03m “uwvsm

3N

wvm

9%

EN

«LVN

mvm

3N

wvu

5:2
556

gm

mg

«3

EN

2.”

ovw

bvm

wv~

ban—28o...
ho 3%

man

EN

EN

Nvm

own

an

omm

awn

35:23
28:20
omEo><

fig

53

SN

ovm

me

NmN

mmN

3m

88»
88:82
88.85

2 3:22am

mg
mg
cvm
mmm
«mm
Nmn
EN

SN

«.5305
5: 28:5
8885

2 362$

ova

own

53

amu

mmn

.mN

mmu

mmm

wig—3
8885
2 32:28

ovm

mvm

wvm

men

vmm

mmm

mmm

emu

595%
282.6

go 592::
23>

02m .0325

5.8: 4.55

$5558 a.. 3a

856.8%
5.55 uwfiu><

88m $0880..
8885 2 Egon

SEA 5: :82?
8852 2 33:28

92825.?
8382 2 35:25

820%
82:9 .3 Spas: 23>

Z

Goa—£803 $228 28 82.33083 :82? mo x32: sou—2280 - 2 .v 035.

218
addition, this self-report is a subjective estimate of a potential future behavior. The
purpose of the question was to determine potential in order to identify where the possible
resources might be and how much churches could expand. The possible bias is that, given
there is no cost to the churches in reporting that they have potential to increase their work,
there is an over-reporting of their likelihood.

Potential to increase volunteering was correlated with both average attendance
(F243) and church health (r==.226), both significant at .01. Potential to increase church
run programs also correlated with attendance (r=.204) and church health (r=.264), with a
very small but significant correlation with community size (r=.137). As with the other
summary scores, these are not large values, but they do offer some information concerning
contributing factors.

A regression model was developed in an effort to explain the variance in current
activity levels. The potential to increase resources score was not used as an outcome
variable in the regression model because the correlation values with any of the independent
variables were so weak, although two were statistically significant. Nor was volunteering
included, because of decisions explained below concerning which independent variables to
include in the regression. However, a regression was run for potential to increase church
run programs, which had stronger correlation values, and for number of direct sponsored
programs (See Tables 4.17 and 4.18 for these values).

The relevant contributing variables considered for the model were average
attendance, budget, size of community, and health of the congregation. A verage

attendance and budget size were substantially correlated (r=.656) as anticipated. It is

219
assumed that the causal direction is from average attendance to budget. Therefore,
budget was excluded from the model. In addition, size of community and average
attendance were also found to be correlated (r=.557) as were budget and size of
community (r=.421). These collinear relationships created difficulties with the modeling
for the regression which was performed. Therefore, the correlation values of size of
community and average attendance with the remaining variable, health of the church were
compared. Here, attendance was significantly correlated (.273 ), while the correlation of
church health with community size has a value of .077, which has not significant.
Therefore, the independent variables used in the regression were size of community and
health of the church.

In the regression for number of current activities, an R of .369 was obtained (F =
18.884, df = 2/240, P = .000). The beta value for size of community was .299 and for
church health was .194. So, size of community appears to be the best predictor of number
of activities. It is possible that this is related to a “small town phenomenon” in which
services are offered informally because the stores of social capital are greater. Thus,
organized activities to address some needs might be less required. However, there also
may be more demands placed on churches in larger communities.

In terms of potential to increase church run programs, an R of .273 was obtained
(F = 9.615, df = 2/238, P = .000). The beta value for size of community was .099 and for
church health was .248. Thus there were differences in how much of the variance was
explained by these two variables for these two different outcome variables. This is logical

as the current activities could be cooperative with others, something all churches might be

220
Table 4.17 - Regression model for number of activities with direct involvement

Moth] Summry""

 

 

 

 

Std
. Error of
Vmables Adjusted tin
Model Entered Removed R R Square R Square Estinnte
1 Church
health,
Sze of . .369 .136 .129 5.9915
comma
Y
a Depaident Vmiable: Numberofactivitis withdimct involvanem
b- Method: I‘mter

C- Indepmdent Vm'ables: (Commit), Chuch hmlth, $213 of oomnunity
‘1 All requested variabla emaed

 

momI
W
Model Sqmres or Sqtme F Sig
1 Regression 1355.790 2 677.895 18.884 .0003
Resiimal 8615.395 240 35.897
Total 9971.185 242

a Dependent Variable: Nunber of activities with direct involvunem
b- Inciqiennnn Variabies: (Constmt), Chl'd) health, Size of oommmity

 

 

Coefll dent?
_
Standardi
zed
Unstandard'md Coefieien
Coefficients ts

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.772 1.316 1.346 .179
S” °f . .872 .175 .299 4.971 .000
commumty
Church
health .815 .253 .194 3.218 .001

a. Dependent Variable: Number of activities with direct involvement

221
Table 4.18 - Regression model for potential to increase church run programs

Model Summary'°"
—

 

 

 

Std
. Error of
V‘m’l‘s Adjtsted the
Model Entered Removed R R Squire R Square Est'nmte
l Chrrch
health,
S'ze of . .273 .075 .067 .69
carilrmmlt
Y
a Dependmt Variable: Potential" to incrmse dmrch rm progmns
‘1 Method: Enter

9 Indqrendent Variables: (Constmt), Church health, Sze of community
d All reqtrested variables entacd

 

ANOVA'
m—m
Model Squaw (11' Square F Sig
1 Regression 9.170 2 4.585 9.615 .0005
Residual 1 13.486 238 .477
Total 12.656 240

a Depardart Variable: Potmtial to incrmedmrdr rmprogams
b- Indq2endurt Variables: (Constant), Chreh health Size of oomrnnity

 

 

Coefficientr‘
—
Standardi
ad
Unstandardhd Coeflicien
Coefficients ts

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 4.437 .152 29.150 .000
S” °f . 3.241302 .020 .099 1.584 .115
comrnunlty
Church
health .1 16 .029 .248 3.960 .000

a. Dependent Variable: Potential to increase church run programs

222
able to offer, while directly run programs required considerable investment of resources,
which might be more diflicult for the church which is less healthy and needing resources

for itself.

Question 4 What social capital development efforts in churches relate to youth? To
what extent are churches indicating a preference for work with children and youth?

The potential of the Churches as social capital developers for youth and children is
measured in two places. First, there is a section in the inventory section which specifies
activities for children and youth. Second, the section on populations for which the church
is willing to increase its activities includes children and youth as possible responses.
Results from this section suggest that a large percentage of churches are interested in
increasing their efforts on behalf of youth and children.

The first part, the section on current activities, included responses of pre-school
programs, after school or other programs for elementary children, sports programs for
under 18 years oldr, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, teen center and other. The responses to
these are found in Table 4.19 This list of activities was not comprehensive of all activities
which could be held for youth. For example, there are groups similar to Boy and Girl
Scouts, such as Camp Fire Girls and 4-H. It was anticipated that these would be reported,
having been suggested by the categories which were given. In addition, the other
categories which were provided were more general. There were churches which wrote in
other activities, which are counted as other.

The churches reported the following activities: pre-school programs (8.6%, =22),

223

after school or other programs for elementary children (12.8%, n=33), sports programs
for under 18 years olds (6.6%, n=17), Boy Scouts (25.6%, n=66) and Girl Scouts (12.5%,
n=32), teen center (7.8%, n=20) and other (6.2%, n=16). A count of other indicates one
church, not necessarily only one activity per church. Clearly, the most prevalent activity in
this area is Boy Scouts. In addition, 29 of the churches (11.2%) were making their
buildings available to others for Boy Scouts and 37 of the churches (14.3%) were doing
the same for Girls Scouts, suggesting that Scouting is a fairly important type of activity in
communities. Boy Scouts in particular is an logical activity for churches, as it religiously
based in its activities. Some churches, although it was not significant numbers, listed
additional activities for youth. Although no one activity had more than five write-in
responses, activities which were expansions within the past two years included tutoring,
supporting a local school, high school completion for teen parents, 4-H clubs, literacy, a
summer roller hockey league, music lessons or programs, and after school programs.
Thus, many of the recent increases were activities for children and youth.

Using the second measure (Table 4.20), children and youth are clearly two of the
three populations which churches are considerably more inclined to serve, at 51.4%
(n=95) and 38.9% (n=72) respectively. If churches which indicated more than three
answers are included (these being technically invalid responses), the rates increase to
59.3% (n=150) for children and 50.4% (n=130) for youth. It was assumed that there was
overlap between these two categories, with some churches reporting willingness to
increase both services for children and for youth. This was, in fact, the case when the

responses were sorted for overlap. 23% (n=60) reported willingness just for increasing

224

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 n e.“ 2 as 2 no» on" 33:25
«A M ed 5 ad a ndo man .550 :00».
e._ v ad. an ad. pm fins an. 538m t5
Eu h Qua on «.2 an «.3 S. 8.68 >8
«6 n ”a 2 «6 N 93 an" use
he» 2 has. .2 got 55%
n._ n v.2 an fin e «.3 a." cub—Eu b55230
8.2 2982.. 856 8 .639. B¢< n
m... v as E a.» nu Qua n . N 88595 .8286; he.— guessing
o\e "— 8838.. ..— 88092 ..— Bnconfle ..—
=~ ..o e\.. =- me o\. :36 .x.
menace—m2 898% 8:032 62
632:2 .625 bee .8:
32.2.3. 22:3: 82.88.. 032m

 

5:?» e2 :28 53:8 B 3:82? .«o 82:22 - 2 .v 033.

 

225
efforts with children, 14% (n=3 7) reported willingness to increase activities for youth,
and 36% (n=93) reported willingness to increase activities for both. The combined total
of these categories is 190 churches, a total of 74% of all responding churches.

A distinction was made between children and youth in the survey because it was
assumed that they would, for developmental reasons, have separate programs, and in an
effort to prompt respondents to think more broadly. However, the concerns of society
seem to be more generally focused on those under 18 years of age, minors who are still in
their formative years. For that reason, children and youth are conceptualized as being in a
continuum, with support or services for either age group leading to healthier, better
functioning adults. Social capital for either children or youth will affect educational
success and subsequent adult decisions regarding civic involvement. 74% churches
reported a potential for increasing work with children and or youth, which seems to show
an overwhelming preference for working with that population. Senior citizens, the only
other population of any substance at 41.6% of valid and 49.6% of total responses, is far
behind children and youth although still a substantial priority. In addition, education,
while only selected by 16.8% of the respondents, ranked fifth out of 18 categories and is
generally considered an area which would benefit children and youth. This probably is an
additional reflection of interest in working with children and youth.

Churches Show a clear preference for working with children and youth compared
to any other population. The only other population which approaches their ratings is
senior citizens, at 41.6%. When comparing the churches’ current activities with their

potential involvement, there is a distinct discrepancy between. the two, with far more

226

apparent willingness expressed than actual services reported. It should be remembered
that the survey explicitly focuses on community activities, not accounting for the many
activities which benefit youth and children associated with the congregation. Thus, it
appears that churches are currently involved in social capital development for children and
youth from the community in a fairly limited way. Many churches appear to be doing
nothing which would develop social capital for youth and children in the community.

Comparing the number of churches which are working with youth and children
(Table 4.19) now and the number expressing possible ability to increase services to youth
(Table 4.20), it is clear that considerably more churches are interested in working with
youth and children than are currently finding it possible to do so. They appear to
recognize a critical need for youth and children to have access to social capital, but
perhaps do not know how to develop programs for youth. They also may not have the

resources at present to develop such programs without external collaborators.

Question 5 Are there specific populations which are more or less likely to be offered
social capital development opportunities?

This question sought to identify whether there was any differences in the tendency
of these churches to engage social capital development opportunities for those in their
communities who are stigmatized, by virtue of behavior or personal characteristics, and
those who are not. Stigmatized populations are an area of particular interest in this study.
Religious institutions such as The United Methodist Church are imbedded in the fabric of

society in the United States. Hence, individuals who acquire social capital through these

227
churches are linked to institutions which are amongst the least stigmatized in society.
Functionally, social capital from churches may tend to reduce the stigma of those who
possess it. However, the moral positions of churches may be a contributing factor in the
stigmatization of the same individuals. As has been discussed, renunciation of the
behavior or even personal attributes which prompted the stigmatization may be a condition
of a church’s willingness to offer social capital. There is a reluctance in some cases to
offer social capital to individuals who are viewed negatively, as there may be a perception
that having social capital, particularly from an institution such as a religious congregation,
could allow the person receiving it to use that social capital for purposes of which the
congregation disapproves. This reluctance stems from a recognition that offering social
capital is a form of destigrnatizing. The problem for society if this occurs is that all
individuals will seek to get their needs met, and in lieu of getting social capital from a
positive source, will secure it from persons who are engaged in activities which are
socially disruptive. Thus, persons who are already stigmatized, for whatever reason, are
pushed to firrther marginalization.

Two questions on the survey sought to identify whether the churches were more
likely to increase social capital generating services to specific populations or problem
areas. Both asked regarding the potential increase in services and provided identical lists
from which to select up to three from the list. The questions were:

(1) What specific problem areas or groups of people in your community do you

believe your congregation would be receptive to working with more than they are

at present? Please indicate up to three items below.

228

(2) What specific problem areas or groups of people in your community do you

believe your congregation would be unable or unwilling to work with more than

they are at present? Please indicate up to three items below.

The categories of populations and problem areas were intended to be somewhat
representative, not inclusive. For example, emergency services and arts/cultural activities
were not included. The purpose of the question was to identify any gaps in who the
congregations would be willing to assist, and it was designed to suggest tendencies toward
exclusion and inclusion, rather than to comprehensively describe the actual activities in
which churches might be willing to increase their engagement. It had been speculated that
there would be differences in the propensity of churches toward different populations or
persons with particular problems, particularly with respect to those which are stigmatized
because of their behavior or social status.

The responses to this question were sorted in two ways, as 68 respondents, over
one quarter, failed to follow the instructions requesting that they select up to three
responses, instead checking more than three. These various numbers are shown in Table
4.20. In order to secure a more valid measure of the priority areas, churches which
selected more than three response were excluded from Column 1 of “Valid Responses”,
but are shown in the second column “All responses” which shows the areas in which
churches are more likely to increase their work. This was not done for the question
concerning excluded populations, shown in column 3 ‘ilnwilling or unable”, as there were
no churches which selected more than three.

However, by implication, those areas not selected in the preference question, even

229

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adv E. On 2 Z a 8882 55832262882 2 25982
n .v w m .N o 2 N 282.22.88.02 2 222302
5.2 an 95 E 2 N 2528E29§2 2 322302
3 e ed 2 3 v 5585:6385 8 252982
5.. m .2 _~ 2 n 853.2 55 882.8885 2 259.82
2 m m.» «N 3 m 2882 558528885 3 259.82
2.2 a I z 2 m 82 55 59.82.8885 9 25982
2.2 a e._ m 2 n 2526385 2 35982
2. o 2.2 e 3 5 856.8865 8 35982
an e 2.2 a e... e 8:2 858589.885 2 “.5982
ed 5 2.: en es 2 95.53.8885 8 35982
an e 2.2 a Z 2 2988. 253.8885 2 4.5982
2 a 2: t. on 2 8885 58888885 2 ".5982
men 3 5.5 2 5.2 o. 38.8 33:82 222 .8 22322. 28 2-8882 2 252802
ea c ed on 2: 2 8882 895558885 2 25982
2 N S: t. o. : a 2582.88.65 6. “.5982
3 o 32 S 2.2 .2 858528885 2 25982
no _ in a e3 9. 892.8885 s 25982
2. o 22 o: 32 2. 582.8885 2 25982
2. o 3.... 22 e. S t. 8958 858.8885 3 25982
2 _ new a. ... _ .. 8 95.26.8885 a. 25982
5:9 2 Be. 2 5... 2
co E852 E882 o .2882
nuance—82 32> 28:228.. :2“. 82528.. 22>
25:55. 8 2585 “5982

 

823.222.2262 .3 222362 2 823.82 2 225322802 . end 0322.

 

230

if they are not excluded in the second question, were ones for which social capital
opportunities will be expressly made available. Given that some churches indicated
willingness for over half of the populations/areas which were given as options, their
omission of the remaining areas or populations seemed telling. Put another way, they
appeared to have included everyone that their church was receptive to serving more. So,
even if they did not overtly identify anyone in the “unwilling or unable” category, their
failure to include a populations/problem areas in their willingness response implies
functional exclusion. This efl‘ect seems even stronger if the respondents selected many
areas. Thus, the entire list of all responses on the willingness question is presented as a
further indication of what the tendencies were for exclusion There are some very visible
trends with respect both to populations the churches are inclined to serve and those which
they are likely to be unwilling to serve. The numbers which follow are from Table 4.20,
valid responses. As described above, children were the most frequently identified
population for whom churches were interested in increasing services (51.6%, n=98), with
senior citizens (41.6%, n=79) and youth (38.9%, =74) next. Below these three, there is
divergence. Hunger initiatives are next (24.9%) with education (16.8%), divorced
persons (10.3%), and housing (11.4%) in double digits. The remaining categories had
limited responses, but all categories were indicated by someone.

The trends regarding who churches were unable or unwilling to serve are also
clearly visible. Gay/lesbian persons were reported by 40.0% of pastors as being a
probably excluded or neglected population and persons with AIDS at 16.8% and ex-

prisoners at 15.7%. No remaining category had more than a 4.9% response rate, and

231
there was “one” or “no” church who indicated an unwillingness or inability to increase
work in the following areas: children, youth, women, senior citizens, divorced persons,
hunger, and education.

It is important to note that although these populations are ones which some
churches are reluctant to target, there are other church currently involved in services to
each of them. Forty-three churches (16.7%) are working in prison ministries. However,
this question asked regarding potential to increase work with ex-prisoners while the
current activities is work with current prisoners, different populations. Unfortunately, the
questionnaire was not designed to include both groups in both questions, making exact
comparison impossible. It might be speculated, however, that there is less concern about
working with prisoners who are incarcerated than with those who have been released. A
few churches, (3.1%, n=8) are engaged in AIDS ministries at present, and although the
questionnaire data do not reflect this, there are churches within the West Michigan
Conference who are either designated as Reconciling Congregations or are working on
becoming one. A Reconciling Congregation is one which has agreed to be supportive and
open to openly homosexual persons. Thus, it is impossible to make a blanket statement
about all churches concerning any one stigmatized population. This apparent tendency
should be taken seriously, however, particularly since there may be an underreporting on
this particular question.

It is difficult to interpret with these findings any certainty. The easiest explanation
is a literal one, that these churches are unwilling to serve populations which are

stigmatized because the disapprove of their behavior or because they fear them. While this

232
is possible, it is also possible that they simply do not perceive that there are any persons
representing these populations represented in their communities. This may be particularly
true for the churches in smallest communities. They also may feel ill-prepared to address
the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS or persons who are ex-prisoners. It should be
considered that the churches may be willing to work with individuals from one of these
populations who approach them for assistance, as compared to planning a program
specifically for that population. Still, the comments of pastors on some of the
questionnaires, such as “I am sorry to have to say this, but I think it is true” and “The
church is divided about this issue”, suggest that there is an actual reluctance on the part of
some number of churches to be proactive in reaching out to persons from the identified
populations. The difference between the response rate for gays and lesbians (40%)
compared to persons with AIDS (16.8%) and ex-prisoners (15.7%) fiirther suggests that
prejudice is a factor in the response. While there may be prejudice about all these groups,
as well as fear of them, the numbers may reflect the extent of prejudice and judgment
toward the different groups.

In both questions, the option was given of either “None” or “I am unaware of any
particular areas”. In the willingness question, only 11.3% of all respondents reported
“none” or “unaware of any”, whereas for the unable/unwilling question, 47.1% indicated
“none” or ‘fimaware of any”. Thus, churches either have more inclination toward specific
populations and problems than they have against specific populations, or their pastors are
more willing to identify the areas in which they are willing to do work than they are to

indicate areas in which they are unwilling, given that the latter answers may suggest an

233
indictment of the church’s attitude toward portions of the community.

The response to the two sets of answers, when they are considered together,
suggests that there is a trend toward offering programs which might provide social capital
to more socially desirable populations and away from those which are less desirable or
who are more controversial. There is a strong trend toward services with youth, children,
and senior citizens. Senior citizens are a logical population for this denomination to
identify as an area of potential increase in services, given its aging membership.

The responses regarding welfare recipients seemed particularly important, as this
survey was mailed in the time period between when federal welfare reform was enacted,
but before it was implemented. Churches were being identified in federal and state public
discourse as one of the institutional settings in communities who would need to assist in
the providing assistance, both tangible and in return to work initiatives, for current welfare
recipients. Among other specifics, churches were being asked to serve as community sites
for individuals on welfare who would need to fiilfill a minimal obligation in order to stay
on welfare. In addition, it seems reasonable that if welfare recipients are to achieve those
goals set forth for them by public policy, it is essential that there be considerable social
capital made available to them. The responses to these two questions were seen as an
indicator of the local churches’ likely response to that call from public officials. It has
already been noted that in Michigan, state level officials for a number of faiths were
expressing reservations about the ability of religious congregations to respond to the
anticipated level of need (Hughes, 1997).

In reviewing the combined answers, it does not appear that welfare recipients will

234
receive much direct support from United Methodist churches in West Michigan. Although
few churches (3.8%, =7) indicated an unwillingness to work with welfare recipients, only
12.8% (n=33) of all pastors, including those who checked off extra responses, said this
was a potential area of expanded. Of the 68 churches who indicated numerous
areas/populations for possible expansion of services, only 26.5% (18) selected welfare
recipients. Since nearly 3/4 of the congregations responding are in small communities
(under 5,000) or open country, one cannot help but wonder what extent of resources,
including churches, are available to assist welfare recipients having to cope with a new set

of expectations.

Limitations of this study

The most obvious limitation of this study is the extent to which it will be possible
to generalize findings to the general population of religious congregations. It is a survey of
only one denomination in a single state. There are potential differences between the
United Methodist Church and other denominations in several dimensions. First, regional
differences exist, even within the United Methodist Church itself. Second, the ethnic-
minority church representation in the sample, while it is somewhat less diverse than that of
the denomination which itselfis non-reflective of much of the country. The UMC is a
nearly exclusively northern European denomination. While this is very reflective of the
ethnic/racial composition of many of the rural areas and smaller communities in which the
responding churches are found, it is not reflective of large metropolitan urban areas and

even of many rural parts of the United States. Thus caution should be exercised in

235
applying these findings to similar areas. Third, there are differences in the socio-economic
status (SES) of the membership of denominations. Typically, the United Methodist
Church membership is middle-class, neither elite nor impoverished (Roof and McKinney,
1987)

Theologically, the United Methodist Church tends to be more progressive than
many denominations, but still somewhat conservative (restrictive) on the more
controversial issues in society, including abortion, homosexuality, alcohol (given the long
association of Methodists with temperance activities), and gambling. Thus, it is less
willing than the more liberal Protestant churches (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, United
Church of Christ) and Jews but much more open to dialogue and social ministry activities
than more conservative denominations such as the Assemblies of God, Southern Baptist,
and similar denominations. On most social-moral issues, the United Methodist Church
and the other moderate Protestants tend to be very much at the mean, along with the
Roman Catholic Church, while Black Protestants tend to be more conservative and
Conservative Protestants are to the most conservative (Roof and McKinney, 1987, 224).
Summary of social capital findings

In summary, the following were found for the questions which were asked about
the social capital potential of the United Methodist Churches of the West Michigan
Conference.

1. T 0 what extent are churches engaging in activities that build social capital? The
concentration of such activities is in the areas of concrete and emergency services. This is

consistent with the findings of Hodgkinson, et al. (1992) regarding the types of services

236
offered by religious congregations. These activities do not have the type of voluntary
associational qualities for persons from the community who seek assistance from the
church as they do for the church persons who are involved in providing the assistance, so
the social capital which is developed for community persons may be less usefirl than that
developed by the church members who assist with these programs. On the other hand, the
social capital benefits of these activities might be greater with religious congregational
sponsorship of the programs than it is when services are offered in other settings,
particularly if there is the opportunity for persons who are assisted to participate in
voluntary activities, not necessarily religious in nature, with the congregation. It is not
clear from the study, however, to what extent that occurs and if it does, what differences
there might be in the social capital which is available in religious congregations of different
denominations or denominations. Additional research is needed to evaluate the social
capital which develops though these particular types of activities. Given the variety of
other programs offered by these churches, it is not possible to say that the United
Methodist Churches in this state are consistent supporters of a particular social capital
producing activity.
2. With what likelihood do churches report of their ability to expand social capital
development activities? These churches generally report some ability to provide
additional resources for activities which would produce more social capital. This ability is
not unlimited and for many of the churches is modest. However, there are some churches
which have extensive ability to increase, apparently across all dimensions of resources.

3. What characteristics of churches incline them toward greater social capital

237
development activities in their local communities? There are significant findings for
characteristics which incline these United Methodist churches toward greater social capital
development, but none of the findings are strong. The strongest findings are that larger
churches and those in larger communities are somewhat more inclined to already be
offering services. There is an even smaller tendency of local churches which are larger and
of those which are healthier to state that they have the potential to increase the resources
they can make available for those activities. Finally, the relative health of the congregation
is positively correlated with their reported potential to increase directly run programs.
That is, healthier churches are somewhat more likely to report being able to increase their
direct work in programs, those in which the church’s involvement in producing social
capital is probably greatest. None of these effects are strongly predictive of where
resource might be located in United Methodist Churches.
4. Wat social capital development eflorts in churches relate to youth and children? To
what extent do churches indicate a preference for work with children and youth? These
two populations combined are the overwhelmingly preference for the churches fixture
expansion of activities. Yet, there is a limited amount of current activity in these same
churches for community youth and children. There are obviously barriers to providing
services for children and youth, barriers which this survey did not attempt to identify.
However, this response, with 74% of the churches indicating interest in these populations,
appears to be the strongest finding of the study. Although the discrepancy between
current activity and willingness to service population cannot be adequately explained here,

it appears that churches are very willing to work with children and youth, if the barriers

238
can be resolved.
5. Are there specific populations which are more or less likely to be oflered social
capital development opportunities? Churches appear to have distinct tendencies toward
children, youth, and senior citizens and away from more stigmatized populations, such as
homosexual persons, ex-prisoners, and persons living with AIDS. Welfare recipients, one
of the populations which public officials seem to believe churches will assist, are also not a
population which churches seem particularly inclined to serve. Thus, it appears that the
judgments or prejudices which churches hold influence the extent to which they are willing
to actively invest resources to assist people. This does not necessary suggest that they will
turn away specific individuals seeking assistance. However, it does mean that these
churches are not likely to be a consistent source of assistance to stigmatized populations,

preferring instead to assist populations such as children and youth.

CHAPTER 5
Summary and Conclusions
The United Methodist Church in context - what of the other denominations?

The discussion of the budgetary limitations of the United Methodist churches in
this survey suggested that there are serious limitations in how much fiinding they can
contribute to additional, non-religious activities in their communities. Theologically, The
United Methodist Church has been shown to be moderate, although its positions on the
role of the church in social action and community are extensive. There is considerable
support within the denomination for non-religiously focused activities. However, at the
local church level, there appears to be some hesitation about serving stigmatized
populations.

The historically more affluent and more liberal churches, such as the United
Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church, and the Episcopalian Church, are likely to have
somewhat more resources locally and to be less hesitant locally to work with stigmatized
populations. Other churches which are historically more conservative socially and
theologically are likely to be more reluctant that the United Methodist church to devote
considerable resource to non-religious activities or to serving stigmatized populations. It
seems probable that all the denominations would be inclined to the two areas in which the
United Methodist churches demonstrated the greatest willingness: emergency and
concrete services and work with children and youth.

A notable exception to these generalizations is that the historically Black churches,

while they may be more conservative than the United Methodist churches in some

239

240
respects, are more likely to be willing to become further involved in activities pertaining to

economic development in their communities.

Application issues: How can social workers collaborate with churches?

Churches are currently active in their communities and indicate some ability to do
more than they currently are. Social workers, the consummate resource brokers and
collaborators, must be certain that they understand, utilize, and assist the religious
congregations in their communities which are willing to be involved in activities serving
their communities. Richmond Garland (1994) points out that in order for social workers
to collaborate effectively in providing services to children they need to recognize that the
church is a unique setting for services. Her discussion implies that professionals who are
currently working in religiously affiliated organizations need to “own” that association,
interpreting to others the place of their organizations rather than minimizing in an effort to
assure that their professionalism and that of their organizations is recognized. She also
points out that the context of the church itself is theological and that the two settings have
difi‘erent languages - they need to learn to communicate with each other. Jeavons (1994)
makes a similar point, presenting the chapter “I will show you my faith by what I do”
which discusses much of that context.

The discrepancy between the current programs and the stated potential and
willingness of the churches, particularly regarding services to youth and children, hints that
the churches lack the skills or the ability to “go it alone” with youth. They also may be

unaware of how to find and involved the youth and children most in need of social capital

241

opportunities. Social workers should consider making available to churches the planning,
training, and administrative skills which they have to assist the churches in developing
need programs. In addition, social workers should develop the requisite skills to be
effective in the faith-based environment, as described in the next section.
What social workers should know about religion and working with churches

Social workers have tended to avoid working with religious congregations, and to
some extent, working with religious institutions of other kinds, for a variety of reasons.
Garland, Bailey, Huffman-Nevins, and Stewart (1990) found that social workers tend to
refer clients to churches for concrete needs: food, clothes, financial assistance. The are
disinclined to refer for counseling, even when they are aware of the presence of those
services at the churches. Social workers must first identify and understand their own
religious understandings and biases, but then move beyond those to a professional
orientation of assessing the religiously based resources in their community (Loewenberg,
1988). “Social work goals and strategies frequently are selected on the basis of their
compatibility with a worker’s ideology or values rather than in terms of the demands of
the problem or the needs of the client (Loewenberg, 1988, 51). Ethical and competent
practice demands that workers be very clear about the effects of their own bias in making
decisions related to their practice. This ought to include a careful appraisal of the
relationship between their own religious belief and values and forms their practice takes.
Given the strong potential for local religious congregations to serve as sources of social
capital and given the fact that many of those served by social workers are likely to be in

need of that very resource, it behooves social workers to explore how to effectively

242
engage the local congregations of their communities in activities which would benefit their
mutual constituencies.

Practical issues also suggest themselves: type of resources most likely available,
populations with which the churches are most likely to work, and the expectations local
congregations have regarding the nature of their relationship with persons receiving
assistance are among the most important.

First, this study suggests that the resources of local congregations are likely to be
limited. The areas in which United Methodist churches are most likely to be willing to
work are those seen as impacting children, youth, or women. It seems somewhat
contradictory that welfare was not selected by more churches, since welfare almost
exclusively benefits women and children. Yet Schneider and Ingram’s (1993)
conceptualization of target populations ofl‘ers insight into this seeming contradiction.
While women and children generally are viewed positively, in spite of having little power,
welfare recipients have even less power and are viewed negatively in general. Persons
who are on welfare are often portrayed as promiscuous, lazy, and selfish. Thus, there may
be less inclination to assist that group, in spite of any Biblical directives which might
appear to include them.

The nature of the resource available also will influence the nature of the
collaboration. Social workers, often administrators for their organizations, may think in
terms of funding from churches as the most viable resource. Certainly all nonprofits are in
need of funding in this era of devolution, which often deflects clients to local service

provision without deflecting proportionate amounts of money. However, this is not the

243
resource which is most readily available in many churches. 40.7% of the churches in this
study indicated an ability to increase financial contributions only a small amount, with
another nearly equal number (41.2%) suggesting an ability to increase contributions a
moderate amount. This does not imply a huge increase in funding to others for provision
of services to those losing services via devolution.

When considering which congregations might be receptive to work with particular
populations or problem areas, practitioners must make the efi’ort to learn about the
specific churches in their communities. Directly discussing with the pastors or key leaders
what the theology and approach of that congregation is regarding a particular problem will
assist the social work professional in gauging whether the congregation will provide
services or is able to collaborate in a way which is consistent with social work values. The
values of particular concern are those which emphasis non-judgmental provision of
services in a way which allows for self-determination.

Understanding the considerable differences which may exist between
congregations of the same denominations, including United Methodist themselves, gives
guidance to the practitioner in'knowing where to seek assistance with what types of
issues. Within the same community there may be churches with very different tendencies.
The issue of homosexuality, which along with abortion and euthanasia, is one the hottest
current theological topics (Loewenberg, 1988, Wood and Bloch, 1995), best illustrates the
wide differences which can exist. There are currently two organized movements within
the United Methodist Church, the Transforming and the Reconciling movements. The

former is essentially one which views homosexuality as inconsistent with Christian

244
morality; the latter is one which actively seeks to be inclusive of persons who identify as
homosexual. Within the greater Lansing, Michigan area, there are churches identified with
each of these movements. Asking the leadership of the congregations directly what their
approach would be to the referral of a person for some form of assistance if they were
identified as gay would inform the social worker of the nature of the relationship which the
local congregation would envision with that person. Given the potential role of
congregations in social capital development, this is a critical issue. While it may be
irrelevant whether a person is gay when he or she is simply requesting a one time food
assistance, it is likely to be very relevant when an individual needs ongoing services which
put him/her into regular contact with the local congregation’s members and pastor. Even
though the scope of this paper has not permitted examination of the amount of social
capital which is available through single contact activities compared to other ongoing
activities, one of the points made earlier is that participation in the activities is a potential
point of entree into participation in the church. The apparent prejudice suggested by these
findings would seem a deterrent to any but the most highly motivated or secure persons,
making it improbable that persons who could benefit from the social capital available

within the congregation itself would become members of the church.

Education of Social Workers
The Council on Social Work Education (C SWE) is beginning to place more
emphasis on curriculum development related to religion (Sheridan, Bullis, Adcock, Berlin,

and Miller, 1992, Sheridan, Wilmer, and Atcheson, 1994). This revisiting of curriculum

245
must include individual practice issues of religious diversity and spiritual needs of clients
(Canda, 1988). Social work education must also address religious organizations as
practice partners, an area which is not visible yet in the discussion. However, many
currently practicing social workers have received very limited education regarding variants
of religion, in spite of the emphasis on diversity which pervades schools of social work.
Therefore, continuing education for professional social workers must also include
opportunities for them to examine their own biases toward religious organizations and
congregations as service providers, and to develop skills in working with them. In
addition to needing to understand their individual clients better, social workers need to
understand the difi‘erences between institutions with whom they will work in the
community. Churches have tended to be skeptical about social workers in many cases
(Marty, 1980) as a result of historical differences in goals and struggles for influence in
society, as well as ongoing disagreements between the values of the two over
controversial moral/social issues such as abortion. This is in spite of the great similarities
of the two in other value areas, such as a fundamental philosophical commitment to the
poor and disenfranchised (Marty, 1980). Marty speaks of the paradox of the United
States having become simultaneously more secular and more religious. Social workers
need formal skills which will help them negotiate that duality. Finally, social workers may
well find themselves working more frequently in jobs which are directly tied to religious
institutions, including congregations, and must learn how to negotiate the religious
environment in which they may find themselves working. A standardized curriculum for

social work education and an organized effort by the profession to better educate current

246

practitioners is needed.

Social capital conceptualizations issues

Social capital, though it has caught the attention of many, is still under-
conceptualized (Foley and Edwards, 1997). While it is in some ways easy to grasp the
concept on first look, its sheer simplicity renders it practically meaningless if it is used
without elaboration and has been discussed here, makes measurement difiicult. Social
capital has been defined as the presence of relationship connections which have the
potential for allowing people to get their needs met. The assumptions which seem implicit
in many discussions is that availability of social capital translates into its use and that
having the potential is the tantamount to having one’s needs met, a guarantee of sorts.
Yet, there are clearly other factors which influence social success and civic participation,
with the most obvious being education (Brady, Verba, and Schlozrnan, 1995; Greeley,
1997). The discussion of social capital suggested that there may be a need for people
who have previously had limited social capital in a small number of settings to learn how
to effectively use social capital. It seems only logical that social capital within families, for
example, would differ from that in a setting such as work, school, or a voluntary
association such as a religious congregation, even when two settings offer the potential for
addressing the same needs. Further development of the concept is needed, accounting for
difi‘erent types of social capital and including additional factors, such as those influencing
whether a persons will be able to effectively use the potential available to them in the

appropriate situations in the future.

247
Implications for future research

Two general areas for fiiture research suggest themselves. This study has identified
some current and potential directions in which churches report being willing to engage in
non-religious activities in their communities. There has also been a discussion of the
current state of understanding of social capital, including some of the disagreements about
definitions and measurement of social capital.

A portion of this study related to the churches’ willingness to increase their work in
social capital producing activities during the next two years. erlingness was explored in
the areas of volunteering, funding, subsidized building use, and direct provision of services
by the churches. Nearly all the churches indicated willingness to increase in some area.
However, it is not clear what would be required for their willingness to translate into
actual increase in their activities. That is, it is not known whether these churches will act
on their willingness and what support, whether from denominational sources or
community-based sources such as social workers, is needed to encourage them. In
addition, the churches have indicated a strong preference for children, youth, and senior
citizens. A follow-up study in two years to evaluate what changes have occurred in their
activities, what populations have been served, and what factors have contributed to their
abilities to increase activities would be instructive. The latter could also be investigated
with the current churches which reported having increased services during the past two
years.

These conceptual limitations of social capital suggest another area of fiirther

research. It is relatively easy and seemingly reasonable to make the assumption that social

248
capital which would not otherwise exist develops as a result of the contacts generated
within voluntary associations. However, there follows a question which has considerable
implications for populations who have not had previous access to those relationships and
the resultant social capital. Are there mechanisms, in addition to social capital itself,
which are needed for people to be able to actually utilize the social capital which is
available to them?

As has been discussed at length, additional research is needed to determine the
validity of suggested measures of social capital. Participation in voluntary organizations,
here churches, has been theorized as a measure of social capital development, with the
assumption that if there is participation, then social capital will be available to participants.
This study has accepted that assumption, testing the extent of voluntary programs ofi‘ered
by churches and of their willingness and capacity to provide those activities. Research is
needed to (1) measure the presence of the specific characteristics of relationships thus
formed; (2) measure the actual products of those relationships; and (3) test what
mechanisms in voluntary associations actually lead to social capital and which do not.
This should be done for a variety of associational and voluntary organizations to determine
whether or not there is a difference in the amount or quality of social capital developed
given the nature of the organizations, such as religious, political, or purely social.

Related to this, research is needed to examine multiple factors and directionality of
influence for the generation of social capital and civic involvement. Some possible areas
of inquiry include clarifying the causal relationships between family social capital assets,

educational success, voluntary associational behavior of family members, and subsequent

249
individual social capital reserves.

In particular, however, the effects of social capital on society need to be examined.
While it is generally believed that social capital is necessary and hence, beneficial to
society, it is unclear what the general parameters are between positive and negative types
and quantities of social capital. What types of organizations promote social capital which
has positive effects? Negative? The place of values in social capital development is a
particularly critical question which has been under-theorized and under-researched.
Development of social capital in the context of religious congregations compared to other
voluntary organizations needs to be explored. Particular attention ought to be paid to the
place of values in this developmental process. With respect to the link of social capital
and values to civic involvement, one area should be of particular interest, given concerns
such as those of Berrnan ( 1997), of the potential for social capital to be used for purposes
which are divisive, and of Minkofl‘ (1997) concerning the need for mediating forces. For
example, does development of social capital in religious congregations lead to greater
civic involvement which is productive to the collective good and which is cooperative as
compared to such development in other settings?

Whatever other areas are investigated, a firndarnental question remains: if social
capital is needed, what amount of social capital is adequate for individuals and for society
to be healthy? Nobody appears to have sought to answer this question for civic
involvement, although the probable link between civic involvement and social capital has
been discussed considerably. This question needs to be explored broadly, with respect to

individual social welfare and with cross-disciplinary approaches to the relationships

250
between social capital, civic involvement, and educational achievement.

Other areas which need further investigation are also suggested. As has been
discussed in several places, social workers will increasingly be expected to develop
cooperative relationships and programs with local religious congregations. This might
include either referral of clients or actual development of programs in and with
congregations. Understanding the context in which cheats will receive services is
important, and in addition to assuring they are better educated regarding religion, it is also
incumbent upon social workers to be able to identify the specific context of a particular
religious congregation. Among other issues, it is ethically responsible for social workers
to know whether or not persons referred to religious congregations for services will
receive those services in a way which is consistent with social work values. In order for
social workers to be able to quickly assess the theological orientations of the local
congregations in their communities, simple assessment tools need to be developed. These
should be instruments, much like the quick assessment tools used with individual clients,
which would allow practitioners to reliably evaluate the overall theological orientation of a
given congregation and to appraise the tendencies of congregations toward specific levels
of acceptance or non-acceptance of stigmatized behaviors and populations.

In addition, there is a need to develop assessment tools and training which would
assist social workers in evaluating the resources which are available from particular
congregations. While social workers received considerable training in assessing the needs
of clients at multiple levels of intervention, little efl‘ort is made to train social workers in

the art of resource identification and assessment. Thus, they lack the needed skills for

251
understanding religious organizations and are not generally activists in development of

non-traditional resources.

Policy Issues

A considerable motivation for this research was the current political climate, as
many people are pointing to churches as primary institutions for resolving flaws in the
welfare system and for solving social problems. Lack of adequate social capital has been
identified as one possible social problems, and churches for a variety of reasons already
discussed may be appropriate places to seek to develop that asset. However, the findings
of this study suggest that policy makers should be more cautious and more focused than
they have been in what they ask of the churches. This is true for the populations to be
served, the types of programs which churches are expected to offer, and the amount of
resources which the churches have available to expand their non-religious activities in their
own communities.

Many of the churches in this study are already very active in their communities,
and nearly all the churches indicated some inclination to do more for persons in need
within their communities. However, the services most commonly ofi‘ered by these United
Methodist churches are immediate and remedial in nature. Services which provided longer
term support and solutions for persons in communities were not consistently offered. For
example, affordable day care is recognized by many people as a key service for women
who are being expected to hold jobs. Yet only 22 churches (8.7%) are involved in pre-

school programs directly, with an additional 23 allowing their buildings to be used by

252
others for this purpose. This is a combined total of only 17.4% for the two programs, and
it does not indicate how many days a week these services are offered. After-school
programs, which serve the dual function of providing latchkey children with supervision so
that parents may work and of providing additional support and social capital for the
children, were only reported by 33 (12.7%) churches, although additional programs were
indicated by some of the churches for other types of programs for children and youth.
These programs are very resource intensive, and churches seem to be indicating that they
have not had the ability to involve themselves so extensively in these activities, in spite of
considerable interest in working with children.

The lack of involvement in economic development, while it is not representative of
all denominations (Jackson, Schweitzer, Cato, and Blake, 1997), is another potential
drawback of reliance of churches for key services to people, particularly in light of the
focus on church involvement in welfare reform. The social capital needed for economic
success is not available to welfare recipients, and these churches so little inclination to
expand activities which will improve the social capital of these persons. While the
presence of other denominations in larger cities may account for some faith-based services
in this area, the preponderance of this sample and the majority of Michigan is rural.
Therefore, many smaller towns and rural areas, if churches are relied on to provide the
required work programs for welfare recipients, may not have adequate services.

Churches do indicate considerable willingness to work with youth and children,
although those services are not for the most part currently being offered. Given that they

also appear to have a limited amount of resources with which to develop new programs, a

253
more appropriate target of any government funding for faith-based services might be
working with these populations. These could include after-school programs for children
whose mothers are newly in the work force, educational programs for youth and children
to enhance their probability of school success, sponsorship of volunteer programs to
support in-school activities, day care for preschool children, and youth clubs for older
children. All of these program types have the potential for increasing social capital, for the
youth and children and their parents as well. In addition, incentives or seed money to
develop church-based community improvement projects similar to AmeriServe for youth
which generate not only social capital for youth but also social capital for others and civic

skills for the youth ought to be considered.

Counterpoints

A fimdamental set of assumptions have been explicitly made in the course of this
dissertation concerning the state of relationships within communities, causality of certain
apparent phenomenon in civic society and the appropriate roles of churches and social
workers in resolving those perceived problems. These conceptualizations, however
attractive, are at least partially inadequate in addressing the most significant problems in
the United States at present. It merits consideration that focusing too much attention on
the issue of social capital, a commodity which is rooted in the day-to—day interactions of
individual people, distracts from solutions which focus on systemic sources of social
problems.

Lemann (1996) counters Putnam’s assertion that social capital has been on the

254
decline. He fiirther disagrees with Putnam’s assertion that there has been decline in civic
involvement, seeing the civic health of the country as also relatively intact. He proposes
rather that “the overwhelming social and moral problem in American life is instead the
disastrous condition of poor neighborhoods, almost all of which are in cities. . . (26)”. He
suggests that the problems may be too large to be addressed or solved solely within the
community. Certainly when comparing the resources of urban communities, even their
churches are probably inadequate in addressing the scope of the problems which exist.
“The difficulty with (a govemment-based) program is that it is politically inconvenient. It
would involve, by contemporary standards, far too much action on the part of the
government, with the benefits far too skewed towards blacks. The model of an entire
United States severely distressed in a way that is beyond the power of government to
correct is more comforting (26).” Thus, one should consider that, although social capital
is a useful and interesting approach, it must not become an exclusionary one. It is, in
many ways, simply an important conceptual tool for social workers and churches seeking
to remediate social problems and needs in their communities.

One additional counterpoint to this entire discussion of the role of churches and
other faith-based organizations working with the needy in their communities is essential.
Churches should be challenged to consider what the broader purpose for their work is, and
whether a part of the work ought to be working to change the conditions of the poor,
rather than continuing to provide immediate assistance which fails to intermpt the social
institutions which perpetuate poverty in the United States.

A brief point was made in the literature review about the possibility that churches

255
are being enlisted to work with the poor partly in an effort to achieve social control of the
poor through another institutional venue. It is subjective to state that this is a part of the
motivation for this latest iteration of social service provision, but it makes sense that it
may be true. As Berrnan (1997) points out, when groups with competing goals both (or
all) acquire considerable social capital, there is the potential for factionalism. This
competition can lead to a divisive and explosive social environment, as has occurred
throughout the world of late. It can also, with societal controls for resolving such
conflicts, lead to change which is beneficial to society as a whole.

Breton (1992), using liberation theology as a rationale, makes a convincing
argument that work with the poor must include the understanding that their condition
includes oppression and exclusion from participation in community. From Breton’s
perspective, lack of community and political participation is a fimction of exclusion, not
simply of disinterest or lack of skills. Her discussion points to a possible reluctance on the
part of social workers to let go -:i-f some of the power derived from their
professional/expert status. A parallel struggle may be present in religious congregations,
which on the one hand are challenged by liberation theologians and others to respond
differently to the poor, but who on the other may be unwilling to relinquish their status as
the moral authorities. “1 see reaching out as a process of ‘re-fianchising’, whereby the
poor and oppressed reclaim their right to be truly participating members of their
communities” (Breton, 1992, p. 257). Accepting this conceptualization would change the
approach of social workers and church people addressing the social capital needs of the

poor. Potentially, it also implies, given the economic structure of this society, a need to

256
assist the poor in developing financial capital in addition to social capital. Finally, it
implies the need to enhance opportunities for the poor to develop social capital with each
other, where autonomy about decision-making regarding how to use that social capital
exists. To the extent that social capital lies primarily in relationships between the poor and
those who control resources, including religious congregations, those with resources and
attendant power will be able to utilize that social capital to exercise control over those
who are poor. Christian churches and social workers alike have a values which give lip
service to liberation of the oppressed or self-determination. They would do well to
consider how the social capital developing structures enhance or detract from oppression

and self-determination.

Haiti and Bolivia

The responses to one question in the survey have not been discussed. The second
question of the survey was not formally a part of the data set. Question number two, on
the first page, asked respondents to choose where their two dollar incentive should be
contributed. The two options were either the Conference priority fund for lunches for
students at the Methodist run schools in Haiti or purchase of a building for a youth center
in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, a project of West Michigan sponsored agricultural missionaries.
The contribution was not part of the project budget, but was a personal contribution. The
responses favored the Haiti project nearly 170-67, with 21 missing responses.

Response to this question was interesting in several respects. First, the incentive

appears to have made a personal difference to the pastors who responded. One pastor, in

257
a personal conversation with me, said that he could not recall having every been
compensated for filling out a survey before. The other, who spoke with me at the 1997
meeting of the annual conference, said that he felt that question was “A stroke of genius”
in getting people to respond. While it is not clear that the pastors would have neglected
the survey otherwise, they did apparently view the contribution as compensation, even
though they did not themselves benefit from it and even though two dollars was certainly
not adequate compensation for the amount of time they must have invested in the survey.
This in some ways suggests the way in which social capital works in the church. They
appeared to have felt gratification about having facilitated, through their cooperation with
the survey, a benefit to persons in another country.

The other interesting aspect of the responses is the number of persons who
selected Haiti rather than the Bolivia project. The lunch program in Haiti has been a
priority of the Michigan Area for three years, as the United Methodist church in the entire
state has made a “covenant relationship” with the church in Haiti. There has been
considerable publicity regarding the priority, especially concerning funding the lunch
program, which had a goal of $100,000 for this year. The very strong response to the
Haiti program, even though the missionary couple in Bolivia are known to and financially
supported by many churches in the conference, suggests that efforts of the conference to
educate members concerning particularly program and mission priorities have an influence
on decisions churches make concerning how to direct their resources.

The strength of the response to hunger, such as the 78.3% (n=202) participation in

CROP walks, and the ranking of hunger as the four most likely area in which churches

258
could increase their support, suggest a similar effect. However, even if these is true, it
may not hold true for stigmatized populations. This is an area which merits research, to
identify what the effects are of denominational influence on non-religious program

support.

A possible strategy for social work/religious congregation collaboration

The tendency identified above of churches to focus on efforts about which they are
better educated and the need for social workers to assure that services are offered in a way
which is consistent with social work values suggests a strategy for utilizing the faith-based
resources of a given community. Collaboration amongst social service providers has been
one of the virtual buzzwords of devolution. Further, this study is suggesting that churches
and social workers ought to collaborate to develop appropriate services in their
communities. One approach to effectively developing ties between religious
congregations and professional social service programs might utilize a unique model of
collaboration.

The model involves recognition of the following points:

0 If in fact congregations are more effectively engaged when they are familiar with the
projects or the need areas, education about particular needs of community members
and the needs of the organizations seeking to assist them would tend to increase the
extent to which resources are made available to support existing efforts.

0 The theological orientation of churches influences their willingness to work with

particular populations and their style of service provision when they do offer services.

259
Therefore, social workers must understand the theological perspectives of the
congregations, including non-Christian congregations, in their communities. This may
involve direct exploration of the perspectives of individual local congregations.
There are a given number of religious congregations, nonprofits, and persons in need
within the community. The number and resources of the first two is, in the short-term,
fairly fixed although the number of persons in need can fluctuate quite quickly if some
circumstance in the community changes, such as the occurrence of a natural disaster or
the closing of a factory. Given that the voluntary organizations are supported by the
people who may he suddenly in need, depending on the scale of the circumstances, the
capacity of the organizations to respond may drop as need increases.
Even though there is a theoretically large capacity to increase funding and volunteering
in communities, the practical reality of the capacity/willingness of local congregations
suggested by this study is that there is at best a small to moderate ability of
congregations to increase resource availability of any type. While the limitations of
making definitive statements about general population of religious congregations are
clear, there is also no evidence from other denominations that there is large untapped
potential which congregations as groups are willing to actualize.
Though not empirically demonstrated, there are indications that congregations respond
to education and encouragement to support a select number of priority areas, such as
the Haiti project and hunger. It may be that isolating a few areas to address in the
local community and addressing them comprehensively through one or a few

congregations would increase the level of resources of all types made available -

260
filnding, volunteering, building use, and even programs run by the church. This focus
on particular needs might also increase the level of expertise on the part of the local
congregations in working with that particular problem area or p0pulation, improving
the quality of services which would be offered. Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996),
referring to a report of the United Methodist Church’s General Council on Finance
and Administration (1992), state that when asked whether people would rather give to
specific causes than to a general budget, 98% of the respondents, who were
denominational leaders, agreed.
The last two points imply that there is demand across the community which must be
addressed, if it is to be at all, by organizations competing for limited resources. While
this seems blatantly obvious on the surface, the rhetoric in public discourse often
implies something quite contrary to this. It implies that there are unlimited, or at least
very large, untapped resources which are easily accessible to communities.
Churches are very viable sources of new social capital. This social capital is
potentially available to both individuals in the community who are currently in need
and also to the social workers and others who are seeking to ameliorate those needs.
This social capital is very limited for social workers in the context of religious
congregations, as skilled as they are at acquiring it in other contexts. They do not
need to be members of congregations to use them to develop social capital for use in
their professional work. They do need to understand the settings and to respect those
who are members of the congregations as such. This is highly consistent with social

work values, but it has not been consistently exercised in religious settings by social

261
workers. Further, the implications of indirect social exchange and reciprocity are that
to the extent that social workers are willing and able to assist persons affiliated with
the congregations, there is likely to be a willingness on the part of the congregation to
assist the social worker in addressing the needs of others.

It seems almost redundant to suggest that with respect to persons in need,
development of social capital is very important, and it is clear that churches have the
potential for developing substantial social capital for persons in need. Further, the
setting of the congregation, a participatory rather than service oriented voluntary
organization, lends itself to doing that in a way that social service providers, including
the social workers, cannot always do.

Given these points, one possible strategy or model, particularly in smaller
communities, is a collaboration between social workers representing various agencies in a
given community and the leadership of the religious congregations in that community.
The goal of the collaboration would be to identify “best matches” between nonprofits and
religious congregations, matches which would set the agenda for who would work
intensively with whom. That is, specific congregations and local nonprofits would be
matched as partners. This would not limit the local congregations from assisting others,
but would increase the access and planning between the partners, essentially functioning as
a social capital development mechanism for the churches and the social workers. This
form of collaboration has particular merit with respect to religious and social work
collaborations because it would allow social workers to utilize congregations for

cooperative projects with a minimal amount of conflict regarding values and ideology.

262

The resource needs of human service providing organizations and other nonprofits
(such as arts organizations) would be identified, as would the underutilized resource
potential of each religious congregation. Further, the theological orientations and interests
of the local congregations could be assessed in order to determine which needs might best
be matched with which churches, allowing active input on the part of both the social
workers and the churches. In addition, it would allow the congregations to explore for
themselves the appropriate services and programs in which they should be involved, given
their understanding of their mission imperatives. Churches already receive solicitations
from any number of local and other organizations with requests for assistance. However,
the frequent lack of relationship between social service providers who request support for
their programs and the churches from whom they seek assistance limits the interaction.
Further, there is not an existing mechanism for “sorting” and prioritizing the needs across
the community.

Having established these partner relationships, a coordinated plan for addressing
the creation of programs and education could be developed between the social workers
and the religious congregation. If the assumptions concerning the role of education in
generating support for missions are correct, then developing a partnership which allows
individual members of a congregation to understand and select among several ways to
support activities will increase that support.

Conclusions
The objective of this study was to assess whether the United Methodist Churches

of West Michigan were in a position to increase the amount of support they give to human

263
services and their contributions to social capital within their communities. The evidence
is that their current work is focused in specific areas, and that there is a segment of
churches which seem willing and potentially able to expand some aspect of their support
for or direct involvement in services sufficiently to impact their communities.

Nearly all churches indicated some ability to increase the amount of collaborative
or direct work they do in their communities. This means that they are potentially good
resources for social workers and others seeking additional support for programs already
being offered or in development, provided that the types of resources sought are ones
which the particular United Methodist Church in their community or neighborhood has
available. With respect to volunteering, both short-term projects involving several people
and longer term volunteering opportunities by individuals are possible options. In
considering between seeking assistance from the many denominations across the
community, it is suggested that identify specific local congregations whose theological
orientation lends itself to the particular cause is an important consideration.

However, there are limitations to the amount of work in which local United
Methodist congregations are likely to engage. The resources simply do not seem to be
extensive enough to warrant an expectation that local congregations by themselves will be
able to provide a safety net for the poor through emergency services. Secondly, there are
clearly defined populations with which the local congregations seem more inclined to
work and particular populations with which the churches seem very disinclined to work.
In particular, welfare recipients were only identified explicitly by a very small minority of

churches as a population which was a high priority. With such a small response from local

264
congregations so soon after the initial passage of the Welfare Reform of 1996, it seems
prudent for policy makers to reconsider the assumption that churches will be a substantial

resource in addressing the needs of people who have been welfare recipients.

APPENDIX

APPENDDI

Churches as a Community Resource
and
Source of Funding for Human Services

Please return survey and direct any questions to:

Susan Grettenberger
226 Baker Hall

School of Social Work
E. Lansing, MI 48824
517-372-4146
gretten2@pilot.msu.edu

 

You indicate your voluntary agreement to
participate by completing and returning
this questionnaire

 

 

 

265

266

PLEASE USEA #2 PENCILTO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY. FOR EACH ANSWER, EITHER FILL IN
THE BUBBLE BY THE APPROPRIATE ANSWER OR WRITE IN THE ANSWER. AS INDICATED.

1. Title of person completing Section 1-3:
0 Pastor
0 Lay leader
0 Administrative Board/COM chair
0 UMW president
0 Secretary/adminisuafive assistant

 

 

 

PhasehwfiepasmrconmlueSecfim4mgudhssofwhoebehscompmdmeomasecdms. 'l'lnnkyou.

 

2. WMleitisnotpossibleformeaooompanateeachofrhechmcheswhopuddpateinmemeyJamcommimdtotbe
workandmissionofrhechnrch. WIwiflpersonanyeonm'brnenperreunnedsurveympmSSm. Inadditioan
mymmwnmbmfimmeWkafiynCmfmhsofiadwmmhmeflpuwm¢mbufimfumm
participatingchm'ches.However,Iwouldlikeyourinputindecidingwhichprojectshouldreceivefllemey. Pleasevoneforone
ofmeprojeetsdesignatedbelow. Youwinbemdfiedinthefinflreputofhowmuchmoneywasconuibmedmeachprojea.
BothprojecrsareAdvurceSpedals.

o mumrmmm ThisistheseemdyeumutheWeaMehingonfaencehassponsaeddnsprojea. The
Mammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Costofeaehmealis8cents.
andthel996-97goalis $100,000.

0 PnrchaseofayouthcenaerinSantaCruLBolivia. ’I‘hroughtheworkofWaltandSueI-Ienry,U.M.missiomrieswho
haveservedinBoliviaforzsymtwoWestMichiganwakeampshaveusiswdinmecomedonofanewchmch
buildingfortheNuevaVidaMethodistChmchinSantaQuz. Now,theehurchisanernptingtoraise$30.w0m
pmchaseahnldingwmchwoddmasmemforamwmimsuymmwymnhanddflm

267

W

DESCRIBE ANY WORK CAMPS MERGERS OF YOUR CHURCH PARTICIPATED IN DURING
1996. LOCAL HABITAT FOR HUMANITY AND OTHER COMMUNITY PROJECTS, SUCH AS
HIGHWAY CLEAN-UP, ARE LISTED SEPARATELY. PLEASE USE #2 PENCIL TO FILL IN THE
BUBBLE BY YOUR ANSWER.

Nobodyfrom onrdrmdrparfldpatedmaworkcampdmhIgMLfikipmquesdonflSbelow)

 

 

 

WorkCampOlIocatiou
3. Pleaseindieatewhareverbestdescn’beswheretheworkcernpwasdone.
OOurcommunity
OInsideourdisu'ict
OElsewhereinMichigan
OAnothersrane
OAnothercountry
4. Checkwhichoneappliestometypeof worksiae:
OChnrchcamp
Obcalchmch
OMissionproject
OHabitatforHumanity(notloeal)
ODisasterloeation
ONoneoftheabove
5. Howmanypeopleparticipated? I
(5C9
C96)
@®
®®
@@
(909
@®
@C')
@®
@@|

 

6. Who participated? (Checkall that apply):
Olocalchurehmembers
Ootha'UnitedMethodists
00%er

7. Whatbestdescribestheagemngeoftheparticipants?
Oyourhanddseirleadersonly
Oadnltonly
Ofamily/inmr-generational

8. Whattypeofworkwasdone?(Cheekallthatapply): _'
0 Church construction
0 House construction (other than local Habitat for Humanity, which is listed elsewhere)
0 Other construction
0 Help with religious programs
0 Help with health programs
0 Help with educational programs
0 Help with migrant programs
0 Help with recreational programs
0 Other. Please describe

 

268
Work Camp #2

WorkCampszroafion (Iftherewasno#2WorkCamp,skiptoQuestion15below).
9. Pleaseindicatewhateverbestdeseribeswheretheworkeampwasdone.
OOurcommunity
Olnsideourdisuict
OElsewhereinMichigan
OAnotherstate
OAnothercountry

10. Check which one applies to the type of work site:
0 Church camp
0 Local church
0 Mission project
0 Habitat for Humanity (not local)
0 Disaster location
0 None of the above

 

 

11. How many people participated?

 

 

IQOQOQQQGQQ
6399999999637

12. Who participated? (Check all that apply):
0 local church members
0 other United Methodists
0 other people

13. Whatbestdescribestheagerangeoftheparticipants?
0 youth and their leaders only
0 adult only
0 family/mter—generational

14. What type of work was done? (Check all that apply):
0 Church construction
0 House construction (otherthanloealHabitatforI-Imnanity,whichislimdelsewhere)
O Other construction
0 Help with religious programs
0 Help with health programs
0 Help with educational programs
0 Help with migrant programs
0 Help with recreational programs
0 Other. Please describe

 

15. Do you think your church would consider increasing participation in work camps?
0 yes
0 no

16. Would having outside help with set-up or joint participation with other churches encourage more work camps?
0 yes
0 no

269

IN THE FOLLOWING SECTION, PLEASE REVIEW EACH ITEM. FOR EVERY
ACTIVITY WHICH YOUR CHURCH SUPPORTS OR ACTUALLY RUNS, PLEASE
INDICATE YOUR CHURCH’S LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT! This section is specifically
intended to identify programs within your community, not programs which you might fund or
support in other parts of the state or outside the state. The levels of involvement include:

*If your church is not involved in an activity, leave it blank

Hosting the activity or program by allowing another group to use the church’s facilities.
Please indicate all activities which take place in your building.

Cooperative program run with another organization. The church is involved in more than
just assisting with funding. There may be volunteers, assistance with planning, etc. Indicate
whether the program is housed in the church building or in a non-church facility (elsewhere).
If there are both types of sites, mark “church”.

Direct spomorship by the church (These are programs which the church runs by itself, even if
there are non—church people who help with the actual project. A soup kitchen which is part of
the church’s program is an example.)

Pleaseflllinthebubbletothefarrightiftheactivityishasieallyonlyservingchurch
members.

 

It is important that this inventory be as complete as possible. Therefore it might be helpful
to have more than one person who knows the church’s activities well review Section 2.

 

 

 

USE #2 PENCIL TO FILL IN THE BUBBLES

Food bank

Clothing bank

Furnitue/appliance distribution

Emergency fund administered by the chuch
Emergency shelter program

Counnunity gardening/surplus produce distribution
Meals for homeless/poor (soup kitchens)

Meals for senior eitizws (meals alwheels)
Refugee resettlement

muMRW)

 

 

Forvictimsoffireorcrime

Forpersonlfamilywithheahhproblem'
amp 7
Evemsfornonprofitsincormmuity I. "
MummW)

 

 

Habitat for Humanity (in your community)

Other community works projects (in you my)
Highway or river clean—up sponsors

Other (specify) ‘

 

 

anummmumm

Twelve step meetings (AA. Alanon. etc.)
Other substance abuse groups

TOPS, Weight Watchers. etc.
Gfimwmmms

Divorce support groups

AIDS groups or ministries

Other health related activities/groups
Parent groups

Domestic violence

NummW)

 

 

H0

Baum Whey-

" "Ila-Ir) nun-aim
O O O
O O O
O O O

,0. O' O
O O O
O .0 O
O O O

'O. .-Qg.0.
O .O O
O -0. O
O O O
O. Q. O
O O O
O ,O O
O O O
O ‘ O, O
O. O. O
O O O
O O O
O O O
O .O O

.O ,O O
O O O
O O O
O "O O
O O. O
O O O'
O O O
O O O

i0000000000 II

0000 00000

0000000000

 

0000000000 1;;

00000

0000

0000000000

271

ammooooooo

 

 

0000000 00000000 0000000
“ .
my 0000000 0000000 00000000 0000000
m“ 0000000 0000000 00000000 0000000
Wm 0000000 .0000000 .00000000 0000000
Wm 0000000 .0000000 00000000 0000000

m
m
m m
.2 m
... m
m m a m
m a A. . v .
m - mm. 3.; Wmm - M Wmm -
mammmmw Wmmmwwm mmMm WWW WWW. .2
MMMWMWMW awash“ enema. W MWMMWW

 

 

 

 

 

272

 

 

 

 

Baum Wheu- um I”
MOW) amine-hue Sm “he—eh
“In
S 'I Ii I' III I III
2mm 0 O O O O
Peaceworkshops O O O O O
outwit». O O . O O O
can
Pfianhfihfistry O O O O O
Post-releaseprogramforpnsoners O O O O O
Iegalassistance O O ,0 O _ O
Incomemxassim O O .O O ‘ O
u- 0 0 . 0 0 .. 0
Recyclingprojectoutsidethechuchrtself O O O O O
Whatloealgroups(mefimmehajuawmplwed)mvefundingfimmechueh.dnoughngumbudgu.wwUMM.or
specralofl’enngs? (includeamamtrfrtrsknown)
Yes No
__ MWWWWW) . O- O
——.—.—.— DomesticViolenceSheluor O, p O
__ HabiaatforHumanity O O
———.—. Yomhpmm . O- .. O
‘___._.. Wit-septum O O
__ 0M(d¢$flib¢), O O
_ ”(Mi 0 O
____ Other(describe) O O
...—.0351“) O O
__ 0ther(describe) O O
Pleasedescnbeanythingelseaboutwhatyouchuchisdomgmyoucommrmrtywlnchyoudnnktsrmportant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

273

mm: Facilities -

Indianewhichfadfitieeue amhblemyowhniflggs). _______W___,
Outchurch ownsnobuilding

Licensedkitchm , -----.” ,-._-,_,_.-___---
Licenseddaycarefadlities "W ”10..-..0“- ..

WWfimmcm-y)

-.’ -..ufi.»

Monumorothu‘mwhehxswforfl ‘
Largemeetingroom

 

amwmmmmmwwfiéfig

Gymnasium

Banierfree mmmiumm ..., __ #
Showers

Audio/visualequipmemfl -, _7_ _.._.__
Other (describe)

 

 

 

.4
8

0000000000

0000000000

E

274

W

PLEASE FILL IN THE BUBBLE WHICH IS UNDER YOUR BEST ANSWER FOR EACH QUESTION. IF YOU WERE
APPOINTED TO THIS CHURCH RECENTLY, GIVE YOUR BEST ANSWER GIVEN WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE
CHURCH’S MINISTRIES. THESE QUESTIONS ARE CONCERNED WITH EMERGENCY, FAMILY, AND OTHER CON-
CRETE NEEDS. AS OPPOSED TO SPIRITUAL NEEDS. USE A #2 PENCIL TO ANSWER.

l. Duringthepast2years,towhatextentdoyouthinktherehasbeenachangeintherequestsforsocialminisn'yassistance
frompersonswhoarenotpartofyomchmeh?

Considerable Moderate Small No Change Small Moderate Considerable
decease decease decrease Incense Incease Incease
6) O © O G) ® ®

2. DuringthepastZyears,towhatextentdoyouthinlrtherehasbeenachangeintherequestsforsocialministryassistance
from persons who are part of yom church?

Considerable Moderate Small No Change Small Moderate Considerable
decease decease decrease Incense Increase Increase
(D ® @ G) G) G G)

3. Drningthepasttwoyears,whatchangeshavemcebeenmyomchmch’sdnecresponsecconabcafionwithomcs
inaddressingtheneedsofpersonswhoarenntpartofyomchurch?

Considerable Moderate Small No Change Small Moderate Considerable
decrease decrease decrease Increase Increase Incense
O G) O 6) © C9 (9

4. During the past two years, what changes have there been in your church’s direct response or collaboration with others
in addressing the needs of persons who are part of your church?

Considerable Moderate Small No Change Small Moderate ' Considerable
decrease decease decrease Incense Increase Incense
0 ® ® (9 © (9 ®

5. Inthenexttwoyenrs, towhatextentdoyoubelieveyomchurchccfldifencomgedenoughmontrlbnnememnney
to meet needs within your community, both of members and non-members?

Considerable Moderate Small No Change Small Moderate Considerable
decease «cease decease Incense Increase Incense
CD ® 6) (9 G) (9 ®

6. In the next two years, to what extent do you believe your. congregation could, ifencouraged, incense the amber of
volunteers available for programs run by your church or by other nonprofit organizations in your community?

Considerable Moderate Small No Change Small Moderate Considerable
decease decease decrease Increase Increase Incense

0 6) CD G) C5) C9 0)

275

7. Inthenexttwoyears,mwhnexmdoywbeheveyomcongr-eganmcounfl’encangedhce-efieuenfynnr
hufldingumimmflmnomfmmogrmsmbymnpmfitcgamunomcomcwmmnnybuedyenps?

Considerable Moderate Small No Change Small Moderate Considerable
decrease decease decease Incense Incense Incense
(D ® O G) O G O

8. Inthenexttwoymwmeantdoymbeheveyommngregnfimmnflermomagedhce-ethemof
programsrnndirectlybyyonrchnrch?

Considerable Moderate Small No Change Small Moderate Considerable
(9 ® 6) (D O O O

9. Whichspecificproblemarensorgronpsofpeopleinyour IO. Whichspecificproblemnrensnrgronpsofpeoplet‘nyaw

connumirydoyoubelieveyomcongregationwouldbere- mugdoyoubelieveyourcongregatiomwouldbe
ceptivetowcltingwithmnrethantheyuentprenent? nnableorunwillingtownrkwirhmemanrheyareat
Pleaseindicateuptothreeitemsbelow: prescrt?Plenseindicnteuptotlneeitermbelow:
ONone ONone
Olamnnawareofanyparticrlararws) Olamnnawueofanyparticnlarareds)
Ochildren Ochildren -
Oyouth Oyoud:

Owomen Owomen

Oseniorcitizens Oseniorcitiaens

Odivorcedpersons Odivnreedpersons

Dex-prisoners Cert-prisoners

Omigrants Omigrants

Orefusees Orefuses

OpersonswithAIDS OpersonswithAlDS

Owelfarerecipients Owelfarerecipients

Ominoritypersons Ominoritypersons

O gay/lesbian persons 0 gay/lesbian persons

Changer Ohmser

Osubstanceabuse Osubstanceabuse

0 domestic violence 0 domestic violence

Oeducation Oeducarion

0110051118 Choosing ,

Openceandjustice Openceandjuatice

Oother(pleaselist) Oothc(plenselist)

 

lO

276
ll. DoesyomchmhmcdvemyganmcomcdimcmppmfiombuLsmcfedcflgovmcnm?

Yes 0Noo
12. If yes, what type of funding or support do you receive? Check all that apply:

 

 

 

 

 

__ Direct grants; How much money? _>
Donation ofsupplies GO®G®®C9®®
Foodfordistributiontoneedy OOGGGGGGG
Staffforprogmmsmpaidbythcmorcity ®®®G®®G®®
GG®®®®®®®
OOOGGGOGG
@G®G@®®©O
006060000
000000000
000000900
.W
13. Location of church (checkallthatapply)
Odowntownofthecommunity
Otransitional neighborhood
Ooutslrirtsofthecityortown
Osuburban community (i.e immediately adjoining alargertown orciry)
Oopencountry
Oresidentialarea
Ocommercialarea

14. Type of community in which your church is physically located
QCity of l.000,000 or larger
OCity of 100,000 - 999,000
(3th of 50,000 - 99.999
OCity of 25,000 - 49,900
OCity of 10,000 ~ 24.999
OCity of 5,000 - 9.999
OTown of 1,000 - 4,999
OTown smaller than 1.000
(3th is not located in atown

15. How would you describe the current status of your church
0 healthy and growing
0 healthy and stable membership
0 healthy and getting smaller .
O struggling somewhat financially and with membership
0 in transition, but stable
0 in jeopardy, struggling to survive

16. How many members did your church report at the end of 1995?

 

 

 

ITLIIIJ
©©©®©®©©©
®®®®®®®®®
®®®®®®®©®
©©®®©©®®®
®®©©®®®©@
®©©®©©®®®
©0®©©©0©©
®®®®®®®®g
000000000
000000000

 

ll

277

17. What was the average attendance reported for 1995?
illILfii

 

 

90999999
99999999
99999999
099999999
099999999
090999999
099999999
999999999
099999900

0
0
0

 

 

9
9
9
9
9
9
9
®
9

 

l8. Whatwasthetotalamountofmoneytakeninbyyourclmrchin1995?
JIIITI

 

 

@9999

 

0999999999
0999969909
0999999999

 

0999999
09999999

E

19. Ifthereare, inthepasttwoyears specficuenswhceyomclmchlnsdevelopndcctpnndadprogramslminimytome
communityinresponsetoperceivedneedplensedencibebelow:

 

 

 

 

 

 

20. Are there any additional comments you’d like to make?

 

 

 

 

 

12

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, S.D., Garland, D.R., Huffman—Nevins, A., & Stewart, J .B. (1990). Social ‘
workers’ views of local churches as service providers: Impressions from an exploratory
study. Social Work and Christianity, 17. 7-16.

Alsgaard, E. (1997). Michigan Area clergywomen hit ‘stained glass ceiling’, too.
MichigahChrist'Lan Advocits, P. 1.

Allen, W.H. (1907). Efficiency in religious work. The Annals of the America_n
Academy of Political and SocLaL Science. XXX, 539-544.

Ammerman, N.T. (February 26, 1996). Bowling together: Congregations and the
American civic order. Seventeenth Annual University Lecture in Religion. Arizona State
University, Department of Religious Studies.

Arney, R. (Undated). Welfare reform summary. World Vision. .-

Bedell, K., & Jones, A.M. (Eds). (1992). Yearbook of American and Canadian
Churches (1992). Nashville: Abington Press.

Berman, S. (1997). Civil society and political institutionalization. American
Behavioral Scientist 40, 562-574.

 

Biddle, J.E. (1992). Religious organizations. In Clotfelter, C .T. (Ed). Who
benefits from the nonprofit sector? Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Blau, J.R., Land, K.C., & Deane, G. (1991). Religious participation, religious
diversity, and social conditions. PONPO Working paper No. 162. Institution for Social
and Policy Studies. Yale University.

Blau, PM. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.

Boisjoly, 1., Duncan, G.J., & Hofl‘erth, S. (1995). Access to social capital.
Journal of Family Issues, 16, 609-31.

Boyer, P. (1978). Building character among the urban poor. Urban masses and

mml order in America: 1820-1920. In Colby, RC. (1989) Social welfare policy.
Chicago: Dorsey Press. (113-134).

278

\

279

Bradley, MB, Green, N.M., Jones, D.E., Lynn, M., & McNeil, L. (1992).
ChurcheL and Church Membership in the United States 1990. Atlanta, GA: Glenmary
Research Center.

 

Brady, H.E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, KL. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource
model for political participation. Ameriaan Political Science Review, 89. 271-294.

Brehm, J ., & Rahn, W. (1995, unpublished). An audit of the deficit in social
capital. Durham, NC: Duke University. In Putnam, R.D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning
out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science apd
Politics 28, 664-683.

 

Breton, N. (1992). Liberation theology, group work, and the right of the poor and
oppressed to participate in the life of community. Social Work with goups, 15, 257-269.

Canda, ER. (1988). Spirituality, religious diversity, and social work practice. _
Social CasewprLL, 69, 238-247.

Carlson-Thiel, S. (September 2, 1996). Filling in the blanks. Capital commentary.
Center for Peace and Justice. PO Box 48368. Washington, DC 20002-0368.

Cartens, C .C . (1907). The Salvation Army - A criticism. The Annals, pf thg
American Academy of Political a__nd Sogial Scienca, & 545-556.

Center for Public Justice (1997). A guide to charitable choice: The rules of
Section 104 of the 1996 federal welfare law governing state cooperation with faith-based
social-service providers. Annandale, Virginia: The Center for Public Justice.

Chapman, AR. (1991). F 't ower and olitics: Politic mini 'nline
churches. New York: The Pilgrim Press.

     

Chang, P.M.Y., Williams, D.R., Griffin, E.E.H., & Young, J. (1994). Church- ‘-

agency relationships in the Black community. Nonprofit ad volwary smtpr gpagarbl,
2;, 91-105.

Church giving continues to decline. (1991, November 11). Christim'g Today,
35113), 49.

Clotfelter, CT. (1992). The distributional consequences of nonprofit activities. In
Clotfelter, C.T. (Ed). Whp benefits fi’om the nonprofit sector?. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.

Cochran, J .W. (1907). The church and the working man. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Scienca, XXX, 441-455.

280

Coleman, J .S. (1990). Foundations of social theory Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press.

Coleman, J .S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American

Journal of Sociology, 941 Supp), 95-120.

Conrad, AP. (1980). Social ministry in the early church: An integral component
of the Christian community. Social Thought, 6(2), 41-51.

Corrnode, D.S. (1994). Review essay: Religion and the nonprofit sector.
Nonprofit and voluntm sector Quarterly, 23, 171-182.

Coughlin, B.J. (1965). Church and state in social welm. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Cnaan, R.A., & Anrofell, L. (1994). Mapping volunteer activity. Nonprofit and
voluntm sector quarterly, 23, 335-351.

Cnaan, R.A., Kastemakis, A., & Wineburg, R.J. (1993). Religious people, "
religious congregations, and volunteerism in human services: Is there a link? Nonprofit
and voluntag sector guartarly, 22, 33-51.

Cnaan, R.A., & Wineburg, R.J. (1996). Social work and the role of the religious ”
community in social service provision. Unpublished. University of North Carolina,
Greensboro.

Donahue, MI. (1994). Correlates of religious giving in six Protestant
denominations. Review of Religious Research 36, 149-157.

Dudley, C.S. (Ed). (1983). Yearbook of American and Canadian Charches: 1983.
Nashville: Abington Press.

Dudley, C.S. (Ed). ( 1979). Where have lour eo le one? New choices for
old churches. New York: The Pilgrim Press.

Dudley, C.S., & Van Eck, T. (Eds). (1992). Social ideology and community
ministries: Implications from church membership surveys. In K. Bedel & A..M. Jones.

(Eds). Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches: 1992. Nashville: Abington Press.

Egan, Meg. (1997). Busting it open: Free intemet access is empowering low-
income communities. The Other Side, 33(3 ), 28-29.

Esbeck, CH. (1996). The regalation of religious organizationa as recipients of
governmental assistance. Washington, DC: The Center for Public Justice.

281

Evans, D. (1907). The social work of church in a factory town. The Ann_als of the -
American Academy of Political and Social Science. XXX, 503-508.

Evans, TS. (1907). The Christian settlement. The Ann_als of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science. XXX. 483-489.

 

Diamond, L. (1994). Rethinking civil society: Toward democratic consolidation.
Journal of Democracy, 5(3 ), 4-17.

Edwards, B. and Foley, MW. (1997) Social capital and the political economy of
our discontent. American Behavioral Scientist 40, 669-678.

 

Ellison, C. G., & George, L.K. (1994). Religious involvement, social ties, and "

social support in a southeastern community. Joamal for the scientifig stqu pf raligi on,
Q, 46-61.

Farwell, PT. (1907). The social work of a suburban church. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, XXX, 496-502.

Fink, A. (1995a). How to Ask Survey Qaestions. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Fink, A. (1995b). How to Desigp Surveys. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fink, A. (1995c). The Sarvay Handbopk. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Fisher, D. (1997, July 28). Helping Dakotas disaster victims brings Maine church
back to life. Mighigan Christian Advocate. p. 7.

Foley, MW. and Edwards, B. (1997). Editors’ introduction. American
Behavioral Scientist 40, 550-561.

 

Foley, MW. and Edwards, B. (1996). The paradox of civil society. Journal of
Democracy, 7, 38-52.

Furfey, PH. (1948) The churches and social problems. The Anaals of the
American Academy of Political apd Social Science, m, 101-109.

Gardner, J .W. (1996). Bailding communig. Washington, DC: Independent
Sector.

Garland, D.R., & Bailey, P. L. (1990). Effective work with religious organizations ’
by social workers in other settings. Social Work ad Chfistim'ty, 17(2), 79-95.

282

General Council on Finance and Administration. (1993-1994). Summary report on
the Annual Conference listening project. United Methodist Church.

Gilbert, K. (1997, July 28). United Methodist clergy women hit ‘stained glass
ceiling’. Michigan Christian Advocate, July 28, p. l.

Gilovich, T. (1997). Some systematic biases of everyday judgment. Skeptical
Inquirer, 21(2), 31-35.

Greeley, A. (1997). Coleman revisited: Religious structures as a source of social _,
capital. American Behavioral Scientist 40, 587-594.

 

Greeley, A. (1997). The strange reappearance of civic America: Religion and
volunteering. (Third draft). At Http://www.agreeley.com/articles/civic/html.

Greeley, A. & McManus, W. (1987). Catholip gontribdtions: Sogiolpgy add
policy. Chicago: Thomas More Press.

Hagan, J ., MacMillan, R., & Wheaton, B. (1996). New kid in town: Social capital
and the life course effects of migration of children. American Sociglogigl Review. 62.
368-385.

Hammond, PE. (1983). In search of a Protestant twentieth century: American
religion and power since 1900. Review of Religious Researcd 24, 281-293.

Hall, P.D. (April, 1997a). The emerging context of service delivery. Paper
presented at Civil Roles of Local Religious Organizations ngspread Conference,
Racine, Wisconsin.

Hall, P. D. (March, 1997b). Apples and oranges: Organizational dilemmas in
assessing the place or religion in the organizational universe. Presented at the Independent
Sector Spring Research Forum. Alexandria, Virginia.

Hall, PD. (1994). Religion and the origin of voluntary associations in the United
States. PONPO Working paper No. 213. Institution for Social and Policy Studies. Yale
University.

Hall, PD. (1990). The history of religious philanthropy in America. In R.
Wuthnow, V.A. Hodgkinson, and Associates. (1990). Faith add philanthropy in America:

Exploring the role of religion in America’a voluntm sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Hall-Russell, C., & Kasberg, RH. (1996). African American traditions gf giving ~-
and serving: A Midwest perspective. Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana University Center on

Philanthropy.

283

Harding, V. (1992). Churchz N the hood: The shape of urban ministry toward the
21st century. Christianigz and Crisis, 52,379-381.

Harris, M. (1994). Quiet care: Welfare work and religious congregations.
Jouraal of Social Policy, 24(1), 53-71.

 

Heying, CH, (1997). Civic elites and corporate delocalization: An alternative
explanation for declining civic engagement. American Behavioral Scientist 40, 657-668.

 

Hinson, E.G. (1988). The historical involvement of the church in social ministries *‘
and social action. Review and Expositor , 84, 233-242.

Hodgkinson, V.A., Weitzman, MS., Kirsch, A.D., Noga, S.M, & Gorski, HA.

(1992). From Belief to Commitment: Tha Communng Service Activities add Fmap' cas of
Religious Congregations in the United States. (1993 Edition). Washington, DC:

Independent Sector.

Hodgkinson, V.A., Weitzman, M.S., Abrahams, J .A., Crutchfield, E.A., &
Stevenson, D.R. (1996a). Nonprofit Almanac 1996-1997: Dimeaaidns of the
Independent Sector. (5th ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Hodgkinson, V.A., Weitzman, MS, Crutchfield, EA, Hefi’ron, A.J., & Kirsch,
A.D. (1996b). Giving and volunteering in the United States. (1996 Edition). Washington,
DC: Independent Sector.

Hoge, DR. (1994). Introduction: The problem of understanding church giving.
Review of Religious Research, 36, 101-110.

Hoge, D.R., & Roozen, DA. (1979). Research on factors influencing church

commitment. In Hoge & Roozen. Undarstanding ahurch grpwth add decline: 1950-1978.
New York: The Pilgrim Press.

 

Hoge, D.R., & Roozen, DA. (1979) Understanding charch ggowth and dgclina:
1950-1978. New York: The Pilgrim Press.

Hoge, D.R., Zech, C., McNamara, P., & Donahue, M.J. (1996). Money matters:
Personal giving in Amarican churches. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox
Press.

Hoge, D.R., & Yang, F. (1994). Determinants of religious giving in American
denominations: Data from two nationwide surveys. Review of Religious Resmlt 36,
123-148.

284

Homans, GO (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of
Sociology, 63: 597-606.

Howard, D.S. (April 2, 1959). Letter to the director of the Department of Social
Welfare of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. In Coughlin, B.J.
(1965). erprch and state in sogial welfare. New York: Columbia University Press. (23).

Huffington, A. ( l 997). A damning moment. US. News and World Report,
122119), 30.

Hughes, J. (June 18, 1997). Churches call on state to aid in social welfare.
Lansing State Journal. Sec. B. p.3. col.4.

Jackson, M.C., Schweitzer, J .H., Cato, MT, and Blake, RN. (1997). Faith-based '
institutions’ community and economic development programs service Black communities
in Michigan. E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Urban Affairs Program.

Jacquet, CH. (Ed). (1973). Effects of inflation on per capita giving. Yegbopk
of American and Canadian Churches (1973 ). Nashville: Abington Press.

Jacquet, C.H., & Jones, A.M. (Eds). (1991). Efi‘ects of inflation on per capita
giving. Yearbook of American and Canag'an Churches (1991). Nashville: Abington

Press.

Jeavons, TH. (1994). Stewardship revisited: Secular and sacred views of
governance and management. Nonprofit and volunta_ry sector Quarterly, 23, 107-122.

Jeavons, TH. (1993). Identifying characteristics of ‘religious’ organizations.
PONPO Working paper No. 197. Institution for Social and Policy Studies. Yale
University.

Jenks, C. (1987). Who gives to what? In Powell, W. (Ed). The Nonprofit
Sector. New Haven: Yale University Press.

 

Johnson, A. (1948). The respective roles of governmental and voluntarily ._,
supported social work. Social service [eview, XXII, 298-311.

Johnson, F .E. (1956). Religion ad social work. New York: Harper and ~—
Brothers.

Johnson, F.E. (1930). The social wog of the churches. New York: Federal ,.
Council of the Churches of Christ in America.

285

Johnson, F .E., Butler, E.B., Cary, CR, and Morrison, R. (1956). State aid for
religious social work. In F .E. Johnson (1956). Religion and soci_al worl_<_. New York:
Harper and Brothers.

Johnson, 08. (1980). The social welfare role of the Black church. Dissertation. :-
Brandeis University, the Florence Heller Graduate School for Advanced Studies in Social
Welfare.

Jones, T.K. (1991). Agenda for recession. Christianity Today, 35, 22.

Judson, E. (1907). The church in its social aspects. The Annals pf tha Amerim
Academy of Political and Social Science. XXX. 429-440.

Keith-Lucas, A. (1962). The church and social welfare. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press.

Kenworthy, L. (1997). Civic engagement, social capital, and economic
cooperation. Americam Behavioral Scientig, 40, 645-656.

Kerby, W.J. (1907). Social work of the Catholic church in America. The Annals
of the American Academy pf Politig and Spcial Sgienaa, m, 473-482.

Landesman, AF. (1956). Jewish social work today. In RB Johnson. Religion
and social work. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Lansing State Journal. (September 21, 1997). Measuring Lansing schools.
Lansing State Jourfl. 9A.

Lawton, K.A. (1991). Churches enlist in drug war. Chrigtianig Today, 35, 44- J
46.

Leonard, B.J. (1988). The modern church and social action. Review ad
Expositpr, 85, 243-254.

Leonard, B.J. (1978). Church and culture: A moral dilemma. Raview and ,
Expositor, 73, 141-147.

Lemann, N. (1996). Kicking in groups. The Atlantic Mpnthly, 277, 22-26.
Levi, M. (1996). Social and unsocial capital: A review essay of Robert Putnam’s
Making Democracy Work. Politics 8; Society, 24, 45-55.

H

Little, D. (1983). Response to D.H. Smith’s paper on contemporary voluntary
action research. Review of Religious Researcta 24, 305-307.

286

Loewenberg, FM. (1988). Religion and social workfipractice: Practice in #-
contemporm American society. New York: Columbia University Press.

Mangold, GB. (1907). The church and philanthropy. The Annals pf the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, X)_Og 522-538.

Manthey, B.J. (1989). Social work, religion and the charch: Policy implications.
Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.

Mares, AS. (1994). Housing and the church. Nonprofit and voluntag sector
quarterly, 23, 139-157.

Marty, M. (1979). Foreword. In D.R. Hoge and DA. Roozen. Understanding
ddurchrowth and decline: 1950-1978. New York: The Pilgrim Press.

Marty, M. (1980). Social service: Godly and Godless. Social Service Review.
5_4, 463-481.

 

Miller, K. (1997). A church for the twenty-first century. L_ife, April, 42-55.

Minkofi’, DC. (1997). Producing social capital: National social movements and
civil society. American Behavioral Scientist 40, 606-619.

 

Moberg, DO. (1983). Compartmentalization and parochialism in religious and
voluntary action research. Review of Religious Researclp 24, 318-321.

Morris, 0D. (1983). A research director’s perspective on the issue of neglect of
churches in voluntary action research. Review of Religious Resach, 24, 308-311.

Morris, R. (1986). Rathinking social wcfl‘are: Why care for the stranger? New
York: Longrnan.

Nelson, (1983). Th; locfl church as a respurce for ETSOQ with manta] #’
retardation living in the community: A study of emergiag roles Ed service patterns.

Dissertation. Brandeis University.

 

Nelson, LB. (1976). The impact of devotionalism and attendance on ordinary and
emergency helping behavior. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religiod 15, 47-59.

Netting, F .E. (1982). Secular and religious fimding of church-related agencies.
Social Service Review. 58. 404-420.

Newton, K. (1997). Social capital and democracy. American Behavioral Scientist
19, 575-586.

 

r.-
—‘

287

Norris, P. (1996). Does television erode social capital? A reply to Putnam. PS;
PoliticziScience & Politicsa 29. 474-479.

O,Grady, J. (1956). Catholic charities in the US - Background and present
outlook. In F .E. Johnson. (1956). Religion and social work. New York: Harper and
Brothers.

Olsen, L.M., Reis, J ., Murphy, L., & Gehm, J.H. (1988). The religious community *-
as a partner in health care. Journal of Comqu Health, 13, 249-257.

Olson, D., & V.A., Caddell, D. (1994). Generous congregations, generous givers:
Congregational contexts that stimulate individual giving. Review of Religiops Research,
36, 168-180.

Pepper, A. R. (1956). Protestant social work today. In F.E. Johnson (1956).
Religion a_n_d socialJvorL New York: Harper and Brothers.

Pildes, RH. (1996). The destruction of social capital. Universig of Pannsylvania
Law ReviewJ 44. 2055-2077.

Portney, K.E., & Berry, J ..M. (1997). Mobilizing minority communities: Social '“

capital and participation in urban neighborhoods. Ameriaan BeMvidrfl Sciantist, 40, 632-
644.

Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making democracy work: givic traditipns in modern Italy.

Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
Putnam, RD. (1995a). Bowling alone. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78.

Putnam, R.D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social
capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politics. 28. 664-683.

Quigley, K.F.F. (1993). Human bonds and social capital. Qrbis, 40, 333-341.

Reece, WS (1979). Charitable contributions: New evidence on household
behavior. The American Economic Review. 69. 142-151.

Richmond Garland, D.S. (1994). flurch agencies: Caring for children an .9
families in crisig. United States of American: Child Welfare League of America.

Ronsvalle, J., & Ronsvalle, S. (1996). Behind the stained glass windows: Monay
dmamics and the church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.

 

Roof, WC. (1978). Community and commitment: Religious pladsibiligy in a
liberal Protestant church. New York: Elsevier.

288

Roof, W.C., & McKinney, W. (1987). American mainline religion: Its changing
shape and filture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Roozen, D.A., & Carroll, J .W. (1979). Recent trends in church membership and

participation. In Hoge and Roozen. Understanding church gtowth and decline: 1950-
1978. New York: The Pilgrim Press.

I...

Roozen, D.A., McKinney, W., & Carroll, J (1984). Varieties of raligious
dresence: Misaion in public life. New York: Pilgrim Press. In R.J. Wineburg (1994). A
longitudinal case study of religious congregations in local human services. Nonprofit and

voluntm sector quarterly, 23, 159-169.

Rose, C. (1996). Propter honoris respectum: Property as the keystone right?
Notre Dame Law Review. 71. 142-44. In Putnam, R.D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out:
The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politicg,
2_8, 664-683.

Rosen, HS. (1995). Public Fimaa. (4th ad). Chicago: Irwin.

Rudney, G. (1987). The scope and dimensions of nonprofit activity. In W.W. *“
Powell (Ed). The nonprdfit sector: A raseargh handbdpk (pp. 55-64). New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Salamon, L.M. (1987). Partners in public service: The scope and theory of
government-nonprofit relations. In W.W. Powell (Ed). The nonprofit sector: A research
handbook (pp. 95-117). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sampson, R.J. (1988). Local fiiendship ties and community attachment in mass
society: A multilevel systemic model. Amarican Sogioldg'cal Review. 53. 766-779.

Schneider, A. & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations:
Implications for politics and policy. America Pdlitical Science Review, 87, 334-347.

Sheridan, M.J., Bullis, R.K., Adcock, C.R., Berlin, S.D., & Miller, PC. (1992).
Practitioners’ personal and professional attitudes toward religion and spirituality: Issues

for education and practice. Jdttrnal pf Social Work Edddatiod 28, 190-203.

Sheridan, M.J., Wilmer, C .M., & Atcheson, L. (1994) Inclusion of content on "“
religion and spirituality in the social work curriculum: A study of faculty views. Jdumal
flociaLWork Educatioa, 30, 363-376.

Sherman, A. L. (1995). Cross purposes: Will conservative welfare reform corrupt
religious charities? Policy Review. 7. 58.

289

Simkhovitch, MK. (1907). The settlement’s relation to religion. The Annals of ”a
the American Academy of Political_ and Socig Science. XXX. 490-495.

Smith, DH. (1983). Churches are generally ignored in contemporary voluntary
action research: Causes and results. Review of Religious Research, 24, 295-303.

South, K. (1992). Churches and AIDS: Problem and solution. Christianig and
Crisis 52 297-298.

 

Specht, H. (1986). Social support, social networks, social exchange, and social
work practice. Social Service Review 60 218-240.

 

Steinberg, R. (1996). Can individual donations replace cutbacks in federal social-
welfare spending? In Burlingarne, D.F., Diaz, W.A., Ilchman, W.F., & Associates.
Capacig for Change? The Nonprofit World in the Age of Devolution. Indianapolis:
Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.

Staral, J .M. (1995). Signs of hope and struggle: Action research in a racially- ‘
mixed central city church. Dissertation. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Stelzle, C. (1907). Presbyterian department of church and labor. The Agaig of
the American Acadamy of Pdlitical and Sdcial Scigce, m, 456-460.

Stump, R.W. (1984). Regional divergence in religious affiliation in the United
States. Sociological analysis, 45, 283-299.

 

Stump, R.W. (1986). Regional variations in the determinants of religious
participation. Review of Religious Research, 27, 208-225.

Sullivan, DH. (1985). Simultaneous determination of church contributions and
church attendance. Economic Inguigi, 26, 309-320.

Thomas, S.B., Quinn, S.C., Billingsley, A., & Caldwell, C. (1994). The
characteristics of northern black churches with community health outreach programs. "
Amefim Journal of Public Health 84, 575-579.

 

Tomlinson, M.E., & Wilson, MI. (1997). Helping others: A profile of Michigan "
volunteers. Briefing paper N. 97-22. E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute
for Public Policy & Social Research.

Truehart, C. (1996). Welcome to the next church. The Atlantic Monthly, 278
(Augdst), 37-58.

Turner, N. (1995). Bridging the gap: Addressing alcohol and drug addiction from ..
a community health perspective. American Journal of Public Health 85 870-872.

 

290

Turner, S. (1995). Putting faith in religion and medicine. Hospital and Health
Networks. 69. 22-23.

Uehara, E. (1990). Dual exchange, social networks, and informal social support.
American Journal of Sociology, 96, 521-554.

United Methodist Church (1989). United Methodist Hm. United States of
America: The United Methodist Publishing House.

~ United Methodist Church. (1996). United Methodist Church structure: statistics.
1996 United Methodist General Conference Web page.

United Methodist Church. (1996). The book of resolutions of The United
Methodist Charch. Nashville, Tennessee: The United Methodist Publishing House.

Vilanskulu, SJ. (1990). Churches uniting against drugs. The Christian Centug,
10_7_, 1052-1053.

Ward, HF. (1915). Pove_rty ad wea_lth. New York: The Methodist Book
Concern.

West Michigan Annual Conference. (1996). Minutes of the West Midhigan
Annual Qonferenca of the Unita Methodist Church. 28th Sassion. Volume 44. No. l-B.

Weisbrod, BA. (1988). The nonprofit econdmy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Weiss, DA. (1996). waards a theoty on the formation of acid capital.

Dissertation. University of Minnesota.

Whitlock, M. (April, 1997). Opening comments at Civic Roles of Local Religious
Organizations Wingspread Conference, Racine, Wisconsin.

Wilson, J.Q. (1993). In loco parentis: Helping children when families fail them.
The Brookings Raview, 11(4), 12-15.

Wilson, M. (Ed). (1995). The state of ndnprofit Michigan 1994. E. Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University.

Wilson, J., & Janoski, T. (1995). The contribution of religion to volunteer work.
Sociology of Religion, 56, 137-152.

Wineburg, R.J. (1994). A longitudinal case study of religious congregations in
local human services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Qtiarterly, 23, 159-169.

29l

Wineburg, R.J. (1996). An investigation of religious support of public and private /
agencies in one community in an era of retrenchment. Journal of Community Pratice.

3(2), 35-55.

Wineburg, R.J. (April, 1997). What can faith-based organizations do? Not do?
Paper presented at Civil Roles of Local Religious Organizations Wingspread Conference,
Racine, Wisconsin.

Wolff, EN. (1995). Top heavy: A study of the increasing inequality of wealth in .-—-
America. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press. In V.A. Hodgkinson, MS.
Weitzman, J .A. Abrahams, E.A., Crutchfield, and DR. Stevenson (1996). Nonprofit
Almanac 1996-1997: Dimensions of the Independent Sector. (5th Edition). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

 

Wolpert, J. (1993). Patterns of generdsig in Ameriga: Whp’§ holding the safety
n_et_? New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press.

Wood, R. L. (1997). Social capital and political culture: God meets politics in the
inner city. American Behavioral Scientist 40, 595-605.

 

Wood, J .R., & Bloch, J .P. (1995). The role of church assemblies in building a civil
society: The case of the United Methodist General Conference’s debate on homosexuality.

Sociology of Religioh, 56(2), 121-136.

Wright, RR, (1907). Social work and influence on the Negro church. The Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Scien_ce. XXX. 509-521.

Wuthnow, R. (1991). Acts pf compassion. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.

Wuthnow, R., Hodgkinson, V.A., & Associates. (1990). Faith ad philanthrdpy in

America: Exploring the role of religion in Ameria’s voluntary sector. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

 

Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996). Community service and political-moral identity
in adolescents. Journal of research on adolescence 6, 271-284.

 

 

Youniss, J ., McLellan, J .A., & Yates, M. (1997). What we know about
engendering civic identity. American Behavioral Scientist 40 620-631.

 

Zaleski, P.A., & Zech, CE. (1994). Economic and attitudinal factors in Catholic
and Protestant religious giving. Review of Religious Researah, 36, 158-167.

292

Zaleski, P.A., & Zech, CE. (1992). Determinants of contributions to religious
organizations: Free riding and other factors. American Journal of Economics ahd

Sociology, 51, 459-472.